ArticleScientific reports2024
Construction of a novel predictive model for hope level in patients with primary liver cancer from a positive psychology perspective.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the current hope levels in patients with primary liver cancer by analyzing the risk indicators of hope levels, constructing and validating a novel hope score-based predictive model. A total of 206 patients with primary liver cancer admitted to the hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery department of a tertiary hospital from October 2020 to June 2021 were included. The Herth Hope Index was utilized to assess hope levels, and based on the questionnaire results, the patients were categorized into low-hope (≤ 30 points) and high-hope (> 30 points) groups. Single-factor analysis and logistic multivariate regression analysis were conducted to explore the factors influencing hope levels in patients with primary liver cancer. A nomogram was plotted, and a risk prediction model for hope levels in these patients was developed. The predictive performance of the nomogram model was evaluated using calibration plots, the Hosmer-Lemeshow test, and other relevant assessments. Total of 206 patients participated in the questionnaire survey, with 82 patients (39.81%) categorized as belonging to the low-hope group. The results of the single-factor analysis showed statistically significant differences (all P < 0.05) in marriage status, education level, residence, occupation, family monthly income, reason for hospitalization or outpatient visit, pressure caused by the disease on the family, history of cirrhosis, and level of social support between the two groups. These variables were subsequently included in the logistic multivariate regression model. The results of the regression analysis indicated that marriage status, residence, family monthly income, and level of social support were independent risk factors. These four influencing factors were transformed into a visual predictive model, which yielded an area under the ROC curve of 0.931 (95% CI 0.899-0.963) and demonstrated model significance (Hosmer-Lemeshow test: χ2 = 4.008, P = 0.856, P > 0.05). The observed and expected values generated by the Hosmer-Lemeshow test were plotted as a scatter plot with a fitted linear trend, showing good consistency between the predictive model and actual risk. The constructed predictive model developed in this study exhibited good predictive capability for assessing the hope levels of patients with primary liver cancer. This model can assist clinical staff in rapidly identifying the psychological risk of low hope levels in patients, thereby providing valuable insights for the timely implementation of proactive management measures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.