The influence of erythropoietin on cognitive function in women following chemotherapy for breast cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Cognitive dysfunction is a potential side effect of chemotherapy, and erythropoietin might be protective. A previously reported study compared quality-of-life in women undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer who were randomized to receive epoetin-alpha or standard care. Here, we report a non-randomized sub-study in which cognitive function of participants was evaluated at 12-30 months after chemotherapy. METHODS: The primary endpoint was the proportion of women with moderate-severe cognitive impairment, as measured by the High Sensitivity Cognitive Screen (HSCS). Subjects also completed the Revised Hopkins Verbal Learning Test (HVLT-R), the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy--Fatigue (FACT-F) and FACT-G self-report questionnaires for fatigue and quality-of-life, and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. RESULTS: Of 278 patients receiving adjuvant treatment in the primary study, 87 participated in the sub-study: 45 had received epoetin-alpha and 42 standard care. Groups were well matched for age and type of chemotherapy. Eight patients (9%) had moderate-severe cognitive dysfunction by the HSCS: six of them in the epoietin-alpha group (not significant). There were no significant differences in the HVLT-R, or in fatigue, but patients who had received epoetin-alpha reported better quality-of-life. CONCLUSION: This study failed to demonstrate a protective effect of epoetin-alpha against the development of delayed cognitive dysfunction after chemotherapy.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 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".