MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156824866 · doi:10.1177/1534735415572886

A Systematic Review of the Safety and Effect of Neurofeedback on Fatigue and Cognition

2015· review· en· W2156824866 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIntegrative Cancer Therapies · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer-related cognitive impairment studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeurofeedbackCognitionPsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationCognitive psychologyMedicineClinical psychologyApplied psychologyPsychiatryElectroencephalography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Many cancer survivors continue to experience ongoing symptoms, such as fatigue and cognitive impairment, which are poorly managed and have few effective, evidence-based treatment options. Neurofeedback is a noninvasive, drug-free form of brain training that may alleviate long-term symptoms reported by cancer patients. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review of the literature was to describe the effectiveness and safety of neurofeedback for managing fatigue and cognitive impairment. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was conducted using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology. A comprehensive search of 5 databases was conducted: Medline, CINAHL, AMED, PsycInfo, and Embase. Randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials, controlled before and after studies, cohort, case control studies, and descriptive studies were included in this review. RESULTS: Twenty-seven relevant studies were included in the critical appraisals. The quality of most studies was poor to moderate based on the JBI critical appraisal checklists. Seventeen studies were deemed of sufficient quality to be included in the review: 10 experimental studies and 7 descriptive studies. Of these, only 2 were rated as high-quality studies and the remaining were rated as moderate quality. All 17 included studies reported positive results for at least one fatigue or cognitive outcome in a variety of populations, including 1 study with breast cancer survivors. Neurofeedback interventions were well tolerated with only 3 studies reporting any side effects. CONCLUSIONS: Despite issues with methodological quality, the overall positive findings and few reported side effects suggest neurofeedback could be helpful in alleviating fatigue and cognitive impairment. Currently, there is insufficient evidence that neurofeedback is an effective therapy for management of these symptoms in cancer survivors, however, these promising results support the need for further research with this patient population. More information about which neurofeedback technologies, approaches, and protocols could be successfully used with cancer survivors and with minimal side effects is needed. This research will have significance to nurses and physicians in oncology and primary care settings who provide follow-up care and counseling to cancer survivors experiencing debilitating symptoms in order to provide information and education related to evidence-based therapy options.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.099
Threshold uncertainty score0.910

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.340 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it