The cognitive effects of adjuvant chemotherapy in early stage breast cancer: a prospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate the cognitive effects of adjuvant chemotherapy in post-menopausal breast cancer patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Breast cancer patients scheduled to receive adjuvant chemotherapy (n = 61) completed comprehensive cognitive testing before and after treatment. A control group of women receiving adjuvant hormonal therapy (n = 51) was tested at comparable intervals. RESULTS: Mean scores for both patient groups were within the normal range relative to published norms on all cognitive tests at both time points, and generally inclined or stayed the same from baseline to retest in both groups. However, in an analysis of individual change scores, the chemotherapy patients were 3.3 times more likely than the hormonal patients to show reliable cognitive decline (31 and 12%, respectively). Chemotherapy subjects showing decline were less educated and had higher baseline depression scores than their counterparts who did not decline. Working memory was the cognitive domain most vulnerable to the effects of chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: These data support previous findings of a subtle negative influence of chemotherapy on cognitive function in a subgroup of breast cancer patients. The results are discussed in terms of the importance of study design.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".