Persistent Cognitive Changes in Breast Cancer Patients 1 Year Following Completion of Chemotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerous studies have shown that there are acute cognitive side-effects of chemotherapy for breast cancer. Presumably, patients are more concerned about chronic treatment effects. This report from a prospective longitudinal study compares cognitive functioning in 56 breast cancer patients 1 year after chemotherapy to that of 56 healthy individuals. Neuropsychological test scores were combined into verbal memory, visual memory, working memory, and processing speed scores, as well as an overall summary score, and analyzed using multi-level growth modeling. Frequency of cognitive decline was assessed using regression-based change scores. There was significant rebound in the overall summary score from end of treatment to 1-year follow-up as well as a substantial reduction in the frequency of cognitive decline. However, more than one-third of the breast cancer patients who showed cognitive decline immediately following completion of chemotherapy showed persistent cognitive decline 1 year later. Furthermore, recovery was not seen in all cognitive domains. In fact, the rebound was significant only for working memory. Longer multi-site studies are recommended to explore the risk factors for and the permanence of these longer-term cognitive effects.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".