Cognitive Impairment Associated With Chemotherapy for Cancer: Report of a Workshop
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cognitive dysfunction may occur in some patients who receive chemotherapy. We provide a summary of an April 2003 workshop on this topic, that included medical oncologists, radiologists, clinical and experimental psychologists, and patient advocates. Current studies indicate that cognitive deficits are often subtle, although they are observed consistently in a proportion of patients, may be durable, and can be disabling. Deficits have been observed in a range of cognitive functions. Underlying mechanisms are unknown, although preliminary studies suggest there may be genetic predisposition and that cognitive impairment may be accompanied by changes in the brain detectable by neuroimaging. The following priorities were established for future research: (1) large-scale clinical studies that use both a longitudinal design and concurrent evaluation of patients with cancer who do not receive chemotherapy-such studies should address the probability and magnitude of cognitive deficits, factors that predict them, and underlying mechanisms; (2) exploration of discrepancies between subjective reports of cognitive dysfunction and the objective results of cognitive testing; (3) studies of cognitive function in patients receiving treatment for diseases other than breast cancer, and in both men and women, to address the hypothesis that underlying mechanisms relate to changes in serum levels of sex hormones and/or to chemotherapy-induced menopause; (4) development of interventions to alleviate these problems; and (5) development of animal models and the use of imaging techniques to address mechanisms that might cause cognitive impairment associated with 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".