Metamemory function in chemotherapy-treated patients with breast cancer: an explanation for the dissociation between subjective and objective memory measures?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine if a deficit in metamemory could account for the disparity between subjective and objective measures of memory function commonly observed in patients with breast cancer (BC). Metamemory refers to the awareness and management of one's own memory function. It is considered an aspect of executive functioning, one of the most common areas of cognitive compromise associated with BC and its treatment. METHODS: Fifty-four women with early stage BC who had recently completed chemotherapy were compared with 54 healthy women matched on age and education. Cognitive function was objectively assessed with a neuropsychological test battery and subjectively assessed with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Cognitive Scale. Metamemory was assessed with a Feeling of Knowing (FOK) paradigm. RESULTS: The patients with BC scored significantly lower than the controls on both the objective and subjective cognitive measures, as well as on free recall and recognition conditions of the FOK, suggesting some decline in primary memory functions such as working memory, encoding, and retrieval. The discrepancy between the objective and subjective measures was larger in the patients with BC than in the controls, but there was no difference between the groups on the FOK metamemory index. CONCLUSIONS: Discrepancy in objective and subjective measures of cognition in patients with BC cannot be accounted for in terms of a deficit in meta-cognition. Objective and subjective measures are complementary, and a comprehensive cognitive assessment in patients with BC requires both. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".