Intra-individual Variability in Women with 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
Studies assessing cognitive functioning in women treated for breast cancer have used primarily standardized neuropsychological tests and examined accuracy and/or reaction time as outcome measures: they have been inconsistent in identifying the cognitive domains affected and the severity of deficits. In other contexts of neural development and disorders, measures of Intra-individual variability (IIV) have proven useful in identifying subtleties in performance deficits that are not captured by measures of central tendency. This article presents proof of concept that assessing IIV may also increase understanding of the cognitive effects of cancer treatment. We analyzed mean accuracy and reaction time, as well as IIV from 65 women with breast cancer and 28 age and education matched controls who performed the Conner's Continuous Performance Test, a "Go-NoGo" task. Although there were no significant differences between groups using measures of central tendency, there was a group × inter-stimulus interval (ISI) interaction for IIV Dispersion (p < .001). Patient Dispersion was more variable at shorter ISI than controls and less variable at long ISI, suggesting greater sensitivity to presentation speed. Interpretation of IIV differences requires further investigation. Our results suggest that future studies would benefit from designs that allow analysis of IIV measures in studies assessing cognition in cancer 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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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