Effects of Cognitive Status on Life Participation of Cancer Survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purposes of this study were to identify the cognitive status of cancer survivors, determine the effect of cognitive status on function and participation in daily activities, and explore how cancer survivors perceive changes in their cognition. The study used a quantitative nonexperimental cross-sectional design. The participants included 35 cancer survivors from two different sites. Instruments included the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and the Reintegration to Normal Index-Postal Version (RNLI-P) in the measurement of cognitive impairment and functional performance respectively. Data were also collected with a supplemental questionnaire to explore participants’ perspectives on their cognitive difficulties and current function. The participant scores on the MoCA indicated cognitive impairment (µ= 25) and their scores on the RNLI-P demonstrated subpar reintegration (µ=9.64). Twenty-one participants answered the supplemental questionnaire. In content analysis of questionnaire responses, 17/21 participants reported some level of cognitive change related to cancer and cancer treatment. Data from an open-ended question were organized into four categories: decreased participation, more selective in activities, balance in activities, and cognitive changes. Study results indicate a large percentage of cancer survivors demonstrate mild cognitive impairment as well as changes in participation in instrumental activities of daily living.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".