Modafinil for attentional and psychomotor dysfunction in advanced cancer: a double-blind, randomised, cross-over trial
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
Cognitive impairment seems to be highly prevalent in patients with advanced cancer. Modafinil, a novel vigilance and wake-promoting agent, may be an alternative treatment. We wanted to investigate this treatment on attentional and psychomotor dysfunction in cancer patients. 28 cancer patients with a tiredness score of 50 mm or more on a scale of 0 to 10 (0=no tiredness, 10=worst possible tiredness) and Karnofsky Performance Status 40-70 were included. All medications were kept stable during the trial despite short acting opioids for breakthrough pain. On day 1 the patients were randomly assigned to receive 200 mg Modafinil orally or placebo and on day 4 they crossed-over to the alternative treatment. Finger Tapping Test (FTT), Trail Making Test (TMT) and Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) were evaluated before tablet intake and again 4, 5 hours after. FTT for the dominant hand as well as TMT were statistically significantly improved on modafinil (p-values=0.006 and 0.042, respectively). On ESAS, depression and drowsiness also improved statistically significantly (p-values=<0.001 and 0.038, respectively). Modafinil in a single dose regimen was significantly superior to placebo regarding two cognitive tests of psychomotor speed and attention. Furthermore subjective scores of depression and drowsiness were significantly improved by modafinil.
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) | 0.000 | 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