ArticleBMC cancer2026
Construction and internal assessment of an exploratory risk prediction model for psychological distress in brain tumor patients: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC cancer, 2026. 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.
- Mediating Role of Family Resilience and Avoidance Between Financial Toxicity and Quality of Life in Cancer Patients: A Cross-Sectional Study.Patient preference and adherence · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to identify determinants of psychological distress (PD) in patients with brain tumors, determine relevant risk factors, and develop an exploratory nomogram-based predictive model with internal assessment via bootstrapping.
methodsA total of 321 brain tumor patients admitted to the Department of Neurosurgery at a tertiary-grade A cancer hospital between April 2023 and February 2025 were recruited via convenience sampling. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify factors associated with PD. Patients were categorized into low distress thermometer (DT < 4) and high distress thermometer (DT ≥ 4) groups based on symptom-related PD levels. A nomogram prediction model was developed using the rms package in R (version 4.3.1), and model performance was assessed through ROC analysis, calibration curves, and the Hosmer–Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test.
resultsThe final prediction model included eight variables: marital status, education level, monthly income, payment method, disease duration, financial toxicity (COST), self-efficacy (GSES), and medical coping mode (MCMQ). The model exhibited good apparent discriminative ability (AUC = 0.840, 95% CI: 0.795–0.885, P < 0.05), with a sensitivity of 0.867 and specificity of 0.678 at the optimal cutoff of 0.513. Internal validation via 1000 bootstrap resamples yielded an optimism-corrected AUC of 0.823 (95% CI: 0.774–0.872), a bootstrapped calibration slope of 0.942 (95% CI: 0.831–1.053), and an optimism-corrected Brier score of 0.187, indicating minimal overfitting. Calibration curve analysis showed the calibration line closely approximated the ideal 45° line, and the Hosmer–Lemeshow test revealed no significant difference between predicted and observed PD incidence (P = 0.371), confirming adequate goodness-of-fit.
conclusionThe exploratory nomogram developed in this study exhibits acceptable internal performance for PD risk stratification in brain tumor patients. As a single-center, cross-sectional model, it requires further internal validation (e.g., cross-validation) and external validation across diverse populations to confirm generalizability. It provides a preliminary tool for clinicians to identify high-risk patients and implement targeted nursing interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.