OBJECTIVE: Although many cancer patients experience multiple concurrent symptoms, most studies have either focused on the analysis of single symptoms, or have used methods such as factor analysis that make a priori assumptions about how the data is structured. This article addresses both limitations by first visually exploring the data to identify patterns in the co-occurrence of multiple symptoms, and then using those insights to select and develop quantitative measures to analyze and validate the results. METHODS: We used networks to visualize how 665 cancer patients reported 18 symptoms, and then quantitatively analyzed the observed patterns using degree of symptom overlap between patients, degree of symptom clustering using network modularity, clustering of symptoms based on agglomerative hierarchical clustering, and degree of nestedness of the symptoms based on the most frequently co-occurring symptoms for different sizes of symptom sets. These results were validated by assessing the statistical significance of the quantitative measures through comparison with random networks of the same size and distribution. RESULTS: The cancer symptoms tended to co-occur in a nested structure, where there was a small set of symptoms that co-occurred in many patients, and progressively larger sets of symptoms that co-occurred among a few patients. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that cancer symptoms co-occur in a nested pattern as opposed to distinct clusters, thereby demonstrating the value of exploratory network analyses to reveal complex relationships between patients and symptoms. The research also extends methods for exploring symptom co-occurrence, including methods for quantifying the degree of symptom overlap and for examining nested co-occurrence in co-occurrence data. Finally, the analysis also suggested implications for the design of systems that assist in symptom assessment and management. The main limitation of the study was that only one dataset was considered, and future studies should attempt to replicate the results in new data.
OBJECTIVE: Although many cancerpatients experience multiple concurrent symptoms, most studies have either focused on the analysis of single symptoms, or have used methods such as factor analysis that make a priori assumptions about how the data is structured. This article addresses both limitations by first visually exploring the data to identify patterns in the co-occurrence of multiple symptoms, and then using those insights to select and develop quantitative measures to analyze and validate the results. METHODS: We used networks to visualize how 665 cancerpatients reported 18 symptoms, and then quantitatively analyzed the observed patterns using degree of symptom overlap between patients, degree of symptom clustering using network modularity, clustering of symptoms based on agglomerative hierarchical clustering, and degree of nestedness of the symptoms based on the most frequently co-occurring symptoms for different sizes of symptom sets. These results were validated by assessing the statistical significance of the quantitative measures through comparison with random networks of the same size and distribution. RESULTS: The cancer symptoms tended to co-occur in a nested structure, where there was a small set of symptoms that co-occurred in many patients, and progressively larger sets of symptoms that co-occurred among a few patients. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that cancer symptoms co-occur in a nested pattern as opposed to distinct clusters, thereby demonstrating the value of exploratory network analyses to reveal complex relationships between patients and symptoms. The research also extends methods for exploring symptom co-occurrence, including methods for quantifying the degree of symptom overlap and for examining nested co-occurrence in co-occurrence data. Finally, the analysis also suggested implications for the design of systems that assist in symptom assessment and management. The main limitation of the study was that only one dataset was considered, and future studies should attempt to replicate the results in new data.
Authors: Thorsten Giesecke; David A Williams; Richard E Harris; Thomas R Cupps; Xiaoming Tian; Thomas X Tian; Richard H Gracely; Daniel J Clauw Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2003-10
Authors: R K Portenoy; H T Thaler; A B Kornblith; J M Lepore; H Friedlander-Klar; E Kiyasu; K Sobel; N Coyle; N Kemeny; L Norton Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 1994 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Alla Sikorskii; Charles W Given; Barbara Given; Sangchoon Jeon; Veronica Decker; David Decker; Victoria Champion; Ruth McCorkle Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2007-07-09 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Carolyn Miller Reilly; Deborah Watkins Bruner; Sandra A Mitchell; Lori M Minasian; Ethan Basch; Amylou C Dueck; David Cella; Bryce B Reeve Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2013-01-12 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Suresh K Bhavnani; Sundar Victor; William J Calhoun; William W Busse; Eugene Bleecker; Mario Castro; Hyunsu Ju; Regina Pillai; Numan Oezguen; Gowtham Bellala; Allan R Brasier Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2011-10-01 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Nikolaos Papachristou; Payam Barnaghi; Bruce Cooper; Kord M Kober; Roma Maguire; Steven M Paul; Marilyn Hammer; Fay Wright; Jo Armes; Eileen P Furlong; Lisa McCann; Yvette P Conley; Elisabeth Patiraki; Stylianos Katsaragakis; Jon D Levine; Christine Miaskowski Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-02-19 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Suresh K Bhavnani; Gowtham Bellala; Sundar Victor; Kevin E Bassler; Shyam Visweswaran Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Suresh K Bhavnani; Justin Drake; Gowtham Bellala; Bryant Dang; Bi-Hung Peng; Jose Antonio Oteo; Paula Santibañez-Saenz; Shyam Visweswaran; Juan P Olano Journal: AMIA Jt Summits Transl Sci Proc Date: 2013-03-18