Cognitive Function in Breast Cancer Patients Receiving Adjuvant Chemotherapy
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
PURPOSE: Breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy have complained of difficulties in their ability to remember, think, and concentrate. This study assessed whether there are differences in cognitive function between breast cancer patients treated with standard-dose adjuvant chemotherapy compared with healthy controls. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The High Sensitivity Cognitive Screen and the Profile of Mood States (POMS) were used to assess cognitive function and mood in a group of 107 women. The women consisted of 31 breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy (group A), 40 breast cancer patients who had completed adjuvant chemotherapy a median of 2 years earlier (group B), and 36 healthy controls (group C). RESULTS: Univariate analysis showed statistically significant differences (P =.009) in overall cognitive function scores between groups A and C, with poorer function in patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. These differences remained significant (P =.046) when controlling for age, education level, and menopausal status. More patients had moderate or severe cognitive impairment in groups A and B than in controls (P </=.002). There were no significant differences in POMS scores between the groups, suggesting that the differences seen in cognitive scores were unlikely to be because of mood disturbance. CONCLUSION: Cognitive differences were observed in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy compared with healthy controls. These differences did not seem to be caused by significant differences in mood disturbance between the two groups. If confirmed, these results have substantial implications for informed consent, counseling, and psychosocial support of patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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