Cognitive effects of chemotherapy in breast cancer patients: a dose–response study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine if cognition progressively worsens with cumulative chemotherapy exposure. We reasoned that the demonstration of such a 'dose-response' relationship would help to establish whether cognitive changes are caused by neurotoxic effects of chemotherapy or whether they are due to other confounding factors such as mood and pre-treatment differences in cognition. METHODS: Sixty women with early stage breast cancer, aged 65 years or younger with no previous history of cancer or chemotherapy, were matched to 60 healthy women on age and education. Neuropsychological assessment was conducted after surgery but prior to commencing chemotherapy and then again following each chemotherapy cycle in patients and at yoked intervals in healthy controls. We used multilevel modeling to assess change over time in an overall cognitive summary score as well as domain-specific cognitive scores. RESULTS: After controlling for baseline performance, age, education, and mood, the chemotherapy group showed a significant progressive decline over time relative to a matched healthy control group in an overall cognitive summary score, as well as in working memory, processing speed, verbal memory, and visual memory scores. A linear model best fit the trajectory of cognitive change over the course of treatment in the chemotherapy group supporting a dose-response hypothesis. CONCLUSIONS: These results are in keeping with a dose-response relationship and provide the most compelling clinical evidence to date that cognitive decline is caused by chemotherapy exposure.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it