Cognitive function, fatigue, and menopausal symptoms in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy: evaluation with patient interview after formal assessment
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
BACKGROUND: Women who receive adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer report fatigue, menopausal symptoms and cognitive problems. Here we compare assessment of these symptoms using self-report questionnaires and a researcher-administered screen of cognitive function with the experience of women as revealed in a semi-structured interview. METHODS: Twenty-one women who were receiving adjuvant chemotherapy completed the Functional Assessment of Cancer Treatment-General (FACT-G) self-report questionnaire, and sub-scales for fatigue (FACT-F) and endocrine symptoms (FACT-ES). They were evaluated for cognitive dysfunction using the High Sensitivity Cognitive Screen (HSCS). They then completed a semi-structured interview, which explored the nature and severity of these symptoms and their impact on daily function. RESULTS: All patients experienced fatigue and most had menopausal symptoms. There was reasonable correlation of findings in the interview with FACT-F and FACT-ES scores. The HSCS revealed fewer problems than were reported by patients, and correlated with patient experience only for the domain of memory. Most patients noted adverse changes in other cognitive domains, especially concentration, with substantial effects on every-day function. CONCLUSIONS: Women receiving adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer have substantial problems with fatigue, menopausal symptoms and cognitive changes. Formal tests such as the HSCS may fail to adequately capture the perceived impact of symptoms.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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