| Title |
The pathophysiology of cancer-related fatigue: current controversies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Supportive Care in Cancer, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00520-018-4318-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
C. M. O’Higgins, B. Brady, B. O’Connor, Declan Walsh, R. B. Reilly |
| Abstract |
Fatigue is one of the most common and debilitating cancer symptoms, and is associated with impaired quality of life. The exact pathophysiology of cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is poorly understood, but in any individual, it is likely multifactorial and involves inter-related cytokine, muscular, neurotransmitter, and neuroendocrine changes. Underlying CRF mechanisms proposed include central and peripheral hypotheses. Central mechanisms include hypotheses about cytokine dysregulation, hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal-axis disruption, circadian rhythm disruption, serotonin, and vagal afferent nerve function while peripheral mechanisms include hypotheses about adenosine triphosphate and muscle contractile properties. Currently, these hypotheses are largely based on evidence from other conditions in which fatigue is characteristic. The purpose of this article is to provide a narrative review of the literature and present the current controversies in the pathophysiology of CRF, particularly in relation to central and peripheral hypotheses for CRF. An understanding of pathophysiology may facilitate direct and simple therapeutic interventions for those with cancer. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 193 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 193 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 29 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 19 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 13 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 6% |
| Other | 38 | 20% |
| Unknown | 68 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 31 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 28 | 15% |
| Sports and Recreations | 21 | 11% |
| Psychology | 12 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 19 | 10% |
| Unknown | 77 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 October 2018.
All research outputs
#16,596,749
of 25,205,864 outputs
Outputs from Supportive Care in Cancer
#3,298
of 5,019 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#206,085
of 335,171 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Supportive Care in Cancer
#83
of 110 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,205,864 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,019 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 335,171 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 110 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.