Cognitive effects of chemotherapy in post‐menopausal breast cancer patients 1 year after treatment
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: Studies in breast cancer patients indicate that chemotherapy may cause subtle cognitive disturbances in some women, but the course is unclear. The current study evaluated the cognitive effects of adjuvant chemotherapy in post-menopausal breast cancer patients 1 year following completion of treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Breast cancer patients scheduled to receive adjuvant chemotherapy (n=53) completed comprehensive neuropsychological testing before commencing chemotherapy (T1), 1 month after completing chemotherapy (T2), and again 1 year later (T3). A control group of women receiving adjuvant hormonal therapy (n=40) was tested at comparable intervals. A standardized regression-based approach was used to identify cognitive decline, and incidence of decline was compared across treatment groups. RESULTS: Whereas at T2, chemotherapy patients were more likely to show cognitive decline than hormonal patients, by T3, the frequency of reliable cognitive decline was the same in both groups (11 and 10%, respectively). However, those chemotherapy patients receiving hormonal therapy at T3 were inferior to the chemotherapy patients not receiving hormonal treatment on composite measures of processing speed and verbal memory. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that there is a subtle negative impact of chemotherapy on cognitive function in breast cancer patients shortly following completion of treatment, but that this resolves within 1 year. However, given that our control group comprises breast cancer patients receiving hormonal therapy, and indications that hormonal therapy may also adversely affect cognition, such conclusions must be considered tentative.
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) | 0.001 | 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