{"title":"Prediction Models for Psychological Distress in Patients With Malignant Tumors: A Scoping Review.","authors":"Huangli Chen, Wenjing Zhang, Xinyu Li, Junyi Li, Xiaodong Ning, Xueqin Yang","doi":"10.1002/pon.70540","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Psychological distress is common among patients with malignant tumors and adversely affects treatment adherence and quality of life. Numerous prediction models have been developed to identify high-risk patients, yet few have been implemented clinically. This scoping review synthesizes the development methods, performance, validation methods, and limitations of existing models to inform future research and support clinical translation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology, eight databases were searched from inception to June 10, 2026. Two reviewers independently conducted screening, data extraction, and quality assessment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirteen studies involving 26 prediction models were included. Logistic Regression (LR), Random Forests (RF), eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), and Artificial Neural Network (ANN) were the most common development methods. Reported sensitivities ranged from 0.518 to 0.968, specificities from 0.651 to 1.000, and Areas Under the Curve (AUCs) from 0.673 to 1.000. Thirteen studies underwent internal validation only; none underwent external validation, and all were rated as high risk of bias. Frequently included predictors were tumor stage, sleep quality, pain degree, age, financial problems, and coping style. Nomograms and web-based calculators were the predominant presentation formats.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although models developed using XGBoost, RF, and ANN reported high performance, these findings are likely inflated due to small sample sizes, low Events Per Variable (EPV), and lack of external validation. Future research should strengthen methodological rigor, increase sample sizes, and conduct external validation to support clinical adoption.</p>","PeriodicalId":20779,"journal":{"name":"Psycho‐Oncology","volume":"35 7","pages":"e70540"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psycho‐Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.70540","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: Psychological distress is common among patients with malignant tumors and adversely affects treatment adherence and quality of life. Numerous prediction models have been developed to identify high-risk patients, yet few have been implemented clinically. This scoping review synthesizes the development methods, performance, validation methods, and limitations of existing models to inform future research and support clinical translation.
Methods: Following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology, eight databases were searched from inception to June 10, 2026. Two reviewers independently conducted screening, data extraction, and quality assessment.
Results: Thirteen studies involving 26 prediction models were included. Logistic Regression (LR), Random Forests (RF), eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), and Artificial Neural Network (ANN) were the most common development methods. Reported sensitivities ranged from 0.518 to 0.968, specificities from 0.651 to 1.000, and Areas Under the Curve (AUCs) from 0.673 to 1.000. Thirteen studies underwent internal validation only; none underwent external validation, and all were rated as high risk of bias. Frequently included predictors were tumor stage, sleep quality, pain degree, age, financial problems, and coping style. Nomograms and web-based calculators were the predominant presentation formats.
Conclusion: Although models developed using XGBoost, RF, and ANN reported high performance, these findings are likely inflated due to small sample sizes, low Events Per Variable (EPV), and lack of external validation. Future research should strengthen methodological rigor, increase sample sizes, and conduct external validation to support clinical adoption.
期刊介绍:
Psycho-Oncology is concerned with the psychological, social, behavioral, and ethical aspects of cancer. This subspeciality addresses the two major psychological dimensions of cancer: the psychological responses of patients to cancer at all stages of the disease, and that of their families and caretakers; and the psychological, behavioral and social factors that may influence the disease process. Psycho-oncology is an area of multi-disciplinary interest and has boundaries with the major specialities in oncology: the clinical disciplines (surgery, medicine, pediatrics, radiotherapy), epidemiology, immunology, endocrinology, biology, pathology, bioethics, palliative care, rehabilitation medicine, clinical trials research and decision making, as well as psychiatry and psychology.
This international journal is published twelve times a year and will consider contributions to research of clinical and theoretical interest. Topics covered are wide-ranging and relate to the psychosocial aspects of cancer and AIDS-related tumors, including: epidemiology, quality of life, palliative and supportive care, psychiatry, psychology, sociology, social work, nursing and educational issues.
Special reviews are offered from time to time. There is a section reviewing recently published books. A society news section is available for the dissemination of information relating to meetings, conferences and other society-related topics. Summary proceedings of important national and international symposia falling within the aims of the journal are presented.