Predictors of the Trajectory of Neurocognitive Functioning in the First Six Months after Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background: While most patients will not experience lasting neurocognitive effects from stem cell transplant, certain subgroups of patients may be particularly vulnerable to cognitive declines. The objective of this study was to identify factors that can predict the trajectory of neurocognitive functioning changes within the first six months after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT). Methods: Adult patient scheduled for their first allogeneic HCT completed a neuropsychological test battery to assess neurocognitive functioning prior to transplant, and at 100 days and six months post-transplant. The neuropsychological testing battery consisted of six tests over 3 domains: learning/memory, psychomotor efficiency/processing speed, and executive functioning/working memory. Sociodemographic (e.g. intelligence quotient (IQ), years of education) and transplant-related (e.g. conditioning regimen, HCT-Comorbidity Index) characteristics were collected at baseline. Additional clinical characteristics were collected at each time point, including Karnofsky Performance Status, acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) graded using revised Glucksberg grading system, chronic GVHD graded with National Institutes of Health consensus criteria, and patient-reported outcomes of fatigue, depressive symptoms, and physical symptom distress. Raw scores were converted to standardized T-scores (Mean=50, SD=10) based on demographically-adjusted norms. Neurocognitive impairment was defined as performance of <1.5 SD on two tests or <2 SD on one test. Composite scores for each domain were tabulated based on average of scores on constituent tests. Participants who completed the baseline and at least one follow-up visit were included in the analysis. Unconditional growth models were used to assess for overall changes in neurocognitive functioning over time. Multivariate multilevel models were then specified to identify predictors of the trajectory of neurocognitive functioning. To address the issue of missing data, a sensitivity analysis was conducted in which all models were replicated using only the data from complete cases, or participants who were assessed at every time point. Results: 58 participants were included in the main analysis, 71% of whom provided data at all three time points. Missing data was mostly due to ill health preventing participation in study procedures. Mean age was 48.2 years; 47% were female; 81% of the sample was Caucasian. Mean years of formal education was 13.81 and the mean IQ was 114. The most frequent indications for allogeneic HCT included AML (34%), MDS (10%), CML (10%) and myelofibrosis (10%). 53% were treated with a myeloablative conditioning protocol. 46% of participants met the criteria for neuropsychological impairment prior to transplant. Mean T-scores of domain-specific neuropsychological performance prior to transplant were 39.93 (SD = 1.40) for learning/memory, 49.57 (SD = 1.26) for psychomotor efficiency/processing speed, and 49.37 (SD = 1.30) for executive functioning/working memory. Unconditional models specified overall improvements in learning/memory (3.64 units, p<.01), psychomotor efficiency/processing speed (3.44 units, p<.01), and executive functioning/working memory (3.82 units, p<.01) over the six months after transplant, that were not an effect of attrition. No significant change in the prevalence of overall impairment was detected over time. On multivariate analyses controlling for a range of sociodemographic and clinical predictors, Karnofsky Performance Status <80 was associated with worsening learning/memory over time (Figure 1); peak severity of acute GVHD higher than grade 2 was associated with worsening psychomotor efficiency/processing speed over time (Figure 2); and greater years of education predicted a faster improvement in psychomotor efficiency/processing speed over time. The effect of performance status and acute GVHD were maintained in subsequent sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: Overall, domain-specific neuropsychological performance demonstrated mild but statistically significantly improvement over the first six months after transplant. However, post-transplant outcomes, such as low functional status and severe acute GVHD, may influence the direction of change in neurocognitive functioning. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».