ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2025
Construction and validation of nomogram prediction model for anxiety and depression in chemotherapy patients with multiple myeloma.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To construct and validate a nomogram prediction model for anxiety and depression in chemotherapy patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Methods: From May 2021 to May 2023, 333 MM chemotherapy patients treated at our hospital were selected. The patients were randomly divided into a modeling group and a validation group in a 7:3 ratio (using a random number table method). According to whether the modeling group patients had anxiety and depression, they were grouped into a non-anxiety and depression group and an anxiety and depression group; a nomogram model constructed using R software was built to evaluate the predictive performance of the model. Clinical decision curves (DCA) were used to assess the value of the clinical application of the model. Results: Out of the 233 patients in this study, 66 experienced anxiety and depression, with an incidence rate of 28.33%. There were great differences in gender, economic income, education level, tumor staging, complications, and treatment plans between the anxiety and depression group and the non-anxiety and depression group (P<0.05). The results of multivariate Logistic regression analysis showed that gender, education level, tumor stage, complications, and treatment plan were risk factors for anxiety and depression in MM chemotherapy patients (P<0.05), while economic income served as a protective factor (P<0.05). The AUC of the modeling group was 0.945, and the H-L test was χ2 = 8.579, P = 0.674, with good agreement. The AUC of the validation group was 0.967, and the H-L test was χ2 = 7.315, P = 0.698, with good consistency. The DCA curve shows that the probability of assessing anxiety and depression in patients undergoing MM chemotherapy is higher for clinical use when the probability is between 0.05 and 0.95. Conclusion: Gender, education, tumor stage, comorbidities and treatment regimen were risk factors for anxiety and depression in MM chemotherapy patients, while financial income was a protective factor for anxiety and depression in MM chemotherapy patients, and the constructed nomogram visually predicted the risk of anxiety and depression in MM chemotherapy patients.
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.