ArticlePloS one2026
A Latent profile and network intervention analysis of psychosomatic symptoms in lung cancer immunotherapy patients.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitors improve non-small cell lung cancer prognosis but induce complex, heterogeneous psychosomatic symptoms. Traditional symptom-focused approaches fail to capture underlying patient heterogeneity and interaction mechanisms.
methodsIn this cross-sectional study of 971 lung cancer patients undergoing immunotherapy, symptom phenotypes were identified using Latent Profile Analysis. Influencing factors were analyzed via multivariate logistic regression. Multivariate logistic regression was used to analyze influencing factors, and symptom networks and optimal intervention targets were investigated using network analysis and computer-simulated interventions.
resultsThe study identified three phenotypes: "High Symptom Burden with Comorbid Distress"(C1, 25.1%), "Emotional Distress Dominant"(C2, 29.2%), and "Mild Adaptive"(C3, 45.6%). Logistic regression (FDR‑adjusted q < 0.05) revealed that smoking history (OR=28.1, 95% CI: 5.2-151.8), clinical stage IV, and poor ECOG performance status (OR range: 5.9-8.4) were strong risk factors for the high‑burden phenotype (C1), while combination therapy (OR=0.22, 95% CI: 0.08-0.56), living with family (OR=0.15, 95% CI: 0.05-0.44), and absence of tumor metastasis were protective. Female sex (OR=3.3) was a risk factor for C2. Network analysis revealed core symptoms and bridging symptoms specific to each phenotype: Fatigue was the core symptom for C1, with interference in general activities serving as the bridging symptom; C2's core symptom was sleep disturbance, with loss of interest serving as the bridging symptom; in C3, diminished enjoyment of life functioned as both core and bridging symptom. Based on cross‑sectional data, computer simulations further suggested potential intervention targets for each phenotype: fatigue for C1, enjoyment of life for C3, and interpersonal networks for C2. Network density was significantly higher in C1 and C2 than in C3 (both p < 0.001).
conclusionsThis study highlights the complex interplay between somatic symptoms and anxiety‑depression in lung cancer immunotherapy patients, offering hypothesis‑generating evidence for precise intervention pathways tailored to distinct symptom phenotypes. It provides preliminary insights toward advancing symptom management toward stratified, personalized intervention models.
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.