Cognitive function, fatigue and menopausal symptoms in women following adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: One and two year follow-up of a prospective controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
8001 Background: Previously we reported substantial fatigue and menopausal symptoms in 100 women receiving adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) for breast cancer, as compared to 100 matched normal women (p<0.0001 for both), with 16% of patients (pts) and 4% of controls experiencing moderate-severe cognitive dysfunction (p<0.008; J Clin Oncol 22, 4175–83, 2003). Here we report one and two-year follow-up. Methods: Initially pts receiving adjuvant CT nominated a female acquaintance, matched by age (+/-5yrs), as a control. Patients and controls were evaluated using the High-Sensitivity Cognitive Screen (HSCS), and the FACT-G quality of life (QL) scale, with subscales for menopausal symptoms (FACT-ES) and fatigue (FACT-F). The first evaluation was towards the end of CT, and was repeated one and two years later. Results: One year evaluations are complete (N=89 pts, 81 controls; 11/19 relapsed or withdrew) and 2-year evaluations will be complete by ASCO 2004 (currently 51pts, 51 controls). Patients showed marked improvement from baseline in cognitive function (p<0.0003), QL and fatigue (p<0.0001for both), and had fewer endocrine symptoms (p<0.03). There were still significant differences in fatigue and menopausal symptoms (p<0.0001 for both), between pts and controls, at one year. Tamoxifen was taken by 45 of 89 pts: menopausal symptoms (p<0.008) and fatigue (p=0.06) improved less, and cognitive function more (p=0.03) in pts taking tamoxifen. Conclusions: Cognitive dysfunction, is temporary in most pts; fatigue and menopausal symptoms improve rapidly but remain worse than in control subjects for at least one year. 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 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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".