MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The effect of chemotherapy on cognitive and cerebellar function in patients with acute myeloid leukemia

2005· article· en· W2240894135 on OpenAlexaff
Dariusz Kuczyński, M.D. Minden, S. M. H. Alibhai

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer-related cognitive impairment studies
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInduction chemotherapyCytarabineCognitionNeuropsychologyMyeloid leukemiaInternal medicineChemotherapyOncologyAudiologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

6692 Background: Standard treatment of patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) includes cytarabine (Ara-C). Some patients receiving Ara-C have described confusion, incoordination and poor balance, suggesting possible cerebellar and/or cognitive dysfunction. However, there are no published data investigating this phenomenon. We therefore evaluated performance on fine motor tasks and other areas of cognition. Methods: Patients with AML receiving Ara-C either during induction (200 mg/m2/day for 7 days) or first consolidation (3 g/m2 every 12 hours on days 1, 3, and 5) were eligible. Induction patients underwent computer-based testing on days 1, 14, and 28 of their cycles. Consolidation patients underwent testing on days 1, 3, 5, 8, 14, and 28. The computer tests used were the Amsterdam Neuropsychological Tasks (ANT), testing fine motor skills, and 5 of 6 tasks from the IMPACT concussion management test, examining verbal, visual and spatial memory. Results: Eight patients (5 induction, 3 consolidation; mean age 43, range 20–73) were enrolled in July and August 2004. Of the three cerebellar tasks (tracking, tapping, and pursuit), the induction group showed evidence of mild decline by day 28 in the tapping task and, to a lesser extent, in the tracking task. Changes were more noticeable in the non-dominant hand. The pursuit task did not show any worsening over time. Memory-based tasks either showed no change or mild improvement, likely due to practice effects. Although consolidation patients could not be compared directly to induction patients, they did not demonstrate worse function at baseline and did not deteriorate on either cerebellar or memory-based tasks over the 4-week period. Conclusions: Ara-C may be associated with adverse cerebellar effects, particularly in repetitive fine motor tasks. Cerebellar dysfunction may preferentially affect the non-dominant side. Further studies with larger patient samples are warranted. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.355 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCancer-related cognitive impairment studiesFrench-language works237,207