ArticleJMIR cancer2026
Psychosocial Distress and Radiation Treatment Interruptions in Patients With Cancer Using Machine Learning and Regression: Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in JMIR cancer, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Uninterrupted delivery of radiation therapy is critical to cancer treatment quality. Unplanned radiation treatment interruptions compromise tumor control and survival. Although previous studies have explored clinical and sociodemographic factors influencing treatment adherence, the role of psychosocial distress and related symptoms remains unclear. Objective: This study aims to identify patient-reported psychosocial predictors of radiation treatment interruptions from patient-reported distress screening data integrated with clinical and socioeconomic correlates via traditional and machine learning-enhanced modeling. Methods: This institutional cohort study included 1953 patients who underwent external beam radiation therapy between August 2020 and May 2024. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, treatment details, and baseline distress levels were extracted from a hospital-level electronic health record data repository. Distress was assessed using the Distress Thermometer developed by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. These data were linked with census tract-level socioeconomic indicators. Predictors of treatment interruption (measured as missed treatment days) were evaluated using negative binomial regression and an extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) model with a Poisson objective function. Results: The study cohort missed a mean of 1.19 (SD 2.18) treatment days (range: 0-15). Higher distress scores, the presence of learning or communication barriers, and genitourinary malignancy were significantly associated with increased interruption risk in the negative binomial regression model. The XGBoost model confirmed these features as top contributors to prediction performance, while yielding an incrementally lower root mean squared error of 2.19 (vs 2.21 for the regression model). Conclusions: Patient-reported distress and health education barriers were modestly associated with treatment interruptions, underscoring the importance of incorporating psychosocial assessments into radiation oncology workflows. Both parametric and machine learning models provided stable and closely aligned predictions of missed radiation treatment days. Key predictors identified as statistically significant in the regression model were also among the top contributors in the XGBoost model, reinforcing the robustness of these findings and supporting integration of both approaches into future intervention strategies.
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.