Towards identifying cancer patients at risk to miss out on psycho-oncological treatment via machine learning.
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: In routine oncological treatment settings, psychological distress, including mental disorders, is overlooked in 30% to 50% of patients. High workload and a constant need to optimise time and costs require a quick and easy method to identify patients likely to miss out on psychological support. METHODS: Using machine learning, factors associated with no consultation with a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist were identified between 2011 and 2019 in 7,318 oncological patients in a large cancer treatment centre. Parameters were hierarchically ordered based on statistical relevance. Nested resampling and cross validation were performed to avoid overfitting. RESULTS: Patients were least likely to receive psycho-oncological (i.e., psychiatric/psychotherapeutic) treatment when they were not formally screened for distress, had inpatient treatment for less than 28 days, had no psychiatric diagnosis, were aged 65 or older, had skin cancer or were not being discussed in a tumour board. The final validated model was optimised to maximise sensitivity at 85.9% and achieved an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.75, a balanced accuracy of 68.5% and specificity of 51.2%. CONCLUSION: Beyond conventional screening tools, results might contribute to identify patients at risk to be neglected in terms of referral to psycho-oncology within routine oncological care.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Some burdened patients do not receive psycho-oncological support due to barriers including not being screened for distress, limited resources, and low accessibility, especially in rural areas.
“Nevertheless, some burdened patients do not receive psycho-oncological support due to various barriers, including not being screened for distress, limited resources and low accessibility, especially in rural areas (4–6).”
From Mindfulness and skills-based eHealth intervention to reduce distress in cancer-affected patients in the Reduct trial: Intervention protocol of the make it training optimized (2022) · cites this paper as [6]
The Discussion (page unavailable) reports that patients not formally screened for distress were least likely to receive psycho-oncological treatment. The Introduction identifies treatment-team resources as a barrier, and the Discussion describes limited support in less-resourced health systems. The paper does not address low accessibility specifically in rural areas. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 49 · Cited by 11
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Bischl, B., Lang, M., Kotthoff, L., Schiffner, J., Richter, J., Studerus, E., Casalicchio, G., & Jones, Z. M. (2016). mlr: Machine learning in R. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 17(1), 5938– 5942.
- Ullrich G. (2020). Management bias in psycho‐oncology? A critical view by a career changer. Retrieved from https://figshare.com/articles/preprint/Management_bias_in_der_Psychoonkologie_pdf/12059442
- World Health Organization (WHO). (2016). ICD‐10: International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems: Tenth revision (5th ed.). World Health Organization.
- Authors
- Günther, M. P., Kirchebner, J., Schulze, J. B., Känel, R., & Euler, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Zurich (CH)
- University Hospital Zurich (CH)
- Corresponding author
- Günther, Moritz Philipp
- Venue
- European Journal of Cancer Care
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2022-02-09
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- e13555-e13555
- ISSN
- 0961-5423 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2354
- PMC
- PMC9286797
- OpenAlex
- W4210940437
- Cited by
- 11
- References
- 49
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2
- FWCI
- 0.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- European Journal of Cancer Care (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
- Keywords
- psycho-oncology, psychological distress, cancer patients, mental illness, risk prediction model, psychological screening, psychiatric diagnosis, inpatient treatment duration, older adults, skin cancer, machine learning
- MeSH terms
- Machine Learning, Psycho-Oncology, Aged, Humans, Medical Oncology, Neoplasms, Referral and Consultation, Skin Neoplasms
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review