Neurocognitive Function and Progression in Patients With Brain Metastases Treated With Whole-Brain Radiation and Motexafin Gadolinium: Results of a Randomized Phase III Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To report the neurocognitive findings in a phase III randomized trial evaluating survival and neurologic and neurocognitive function in patients with brain metastases from solid tumors receiving whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT) with or without motexafin gadolinium (MGd). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive WBRT 30 Gy in 10 fractions with or without MGd 5 mg/kg/d. Monthly neurocognitive testing for memory, executive function, and fine motor skill was performed. RESULTS: Four hundred one patients were enrolled (251 with non-small-cell lung cancer, 75 with breast cancer, and 75 with other cancers); 90.5% patients had impairment of one or more neurocognitive tests at baseline. Neurocognitive test scores of memory, fine motor speed, executive function, and global neurocognitive impairment at baseline were correlated with brain tumor volume and predictive of survival. There was no statistically significant difference between treatment arms in time to neurocognitive progression. Patients with lung cancer (but not other types of cancer) who were treated with MGd tended to have improved memory and executive function (P =.062) and improved neurologic function as assessed by a blinded events review committee (P =.048). CONCLUSION: Neurocognitive tests are a relatively sensitive measure of brain functioning; a combination of tumor prognostic variables and brain function assessments seems to predict survival better than tumor variables alone. Although the addition of MGd to WBRT did not produce a significant overall improvement between treatment arms, MGd may improve memory and executive function and prolong time to neurocognitive and neurologic progression in patients with brain metastases from lung cancer.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".