A Meta-Analysis of the Neuropsychological Effects of Adjuvant Chemotherapy Treatment in Women Treated for Breast Cancer
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
Given the improvement in mortality rates associated with breast cancer, the importance of understanding the long-term neuropsychological consequences of chemotherapy is becoming increasingly vital. This study applies meta-analytic techniques to the scant literature on the relationship between contemporary adjuvant chemotherapy treatment for breast cancer and cognitive dysfunction as examined through neuropsychological indices. Seven studies (involving more than 300 participants) were selected from over 200 potential articles, based on three inclusion criteria: presence of breast cancer, administration of chemotherapy treatment, and use of neuropsychological tests. From these, nine treatment-control comparisons were used to generate 129 Hedge's d effect sizes across the cognitive domains of simple attention, working memory short- and long-term memory, speed of processing, language, spatial abilities, and motor function. Small to medium cumulative effect sizes, showing diminished cognitive function for chemotherapy treatment groups compared to control groups, were obtained for each of the eight cognitive domains. Overall, these results suggest that women who undergo adjuvant chemotherapy as treatment for breast cancer may experience subtle yet consequential cognitive decline.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it