MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001293348 · doi:10.1016/j.breast.2013.04.002

A pilot study of prospective memory functioning in early breast cancer survivors

2013· article· en· W2001293348 on OpenAlexafffund
Lise Paquet, Barbara Collins, Xinni Song, Anne Chinneck, Marc Bedard, Shailendra Verma

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Breast · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer-related cognitive impairment studies
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalCarleton University
FundersCanadian Cancer Society
KeywordsMedicineDepression (economics)Breast cancerCancer-related fatigueProspective cohort studyCancerPsychological interventionOdds ratioCenter for Epidemiologic Studies Depression ScalePhysical therapyInternal medicineClinical psychologyOncologyPsychiatryCognitionDepressive symptoms

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: To evaluate prospective memory (PM) functioning in early breast cancer (BC) survivors and its association with fatigue and depression. METHODS: The Memory for Intention Screening Test, the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Fatigue subscale were administered to 80 patients and 80 aged-matched healthy controls. RESULTS: Patients performed more poorly than controls on the memory test (p < 0.001) and had a higher rate of impairment (odds ratio = 5.5, p < 0.01). Fatigue mediated the relationship between Group membership and PM performance. CONCLUSIONS: BC survivors exhibited a clear pattern of PM deficit and fatigue was a major contributor to this deficit. This suggests that a common mechanism may be involved in fatigue symptoms and memory disturbances experienced by patients. Further research is needed to evaluate the role of adjuvant therapy in PM deficits and to explore whether interventions targeted at improving fatigue may also improve memory functioning in BC survivors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.900

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe BreastSame topicCancer-related cognitive impairment studiesFrench-language works237,207