Pretreatment Differences in Intraindividual Variability in Reaction Time between Women Diagnosed with Breast Cancer and Healthy Controls
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Chemotherapy has adverse effects on cognitive performance in women treated for breast cancer, but less is known about the period before chemotherapy. Studies have focused on mean level of performance, yet there is increasing recognition that variability in performance within an individual is also an important behavioral indicator of cognitive functioning and underlying neural integrity. METHODS: We examined intraindividual variability (IIV) before chemotherapy and surgery in women diagnosed with breast cancer (n=31), and a healthy control group matched on age and education (n=25). IIV was calculated across trials of a computerized Stroop task, including an examination of the slowest and fastest trials of reaction time (RT) responses. RESULTS: The groups were equivalent on overall accuracy and speed, and participants in both groups were less accurate and slower on incongruent trials compared with congruent trials. However, women with breast cancer became more variable with increased task difficulty relative to healthy controls. Among the slowest RT responses, women with breast cancer were significantly more variable than healthy controls on incongruent trials. This suggests that a specific variability-producing process (e.g., attentional lapses) occurs in task conditions that require executive control (e.g., incongruent trials). CONCLUSIONS: Results are consistent with other evidence of executive dysfunction among women treated for breast cancer. These findings highlight the importance of pretreatment assessment and show that variability in performance provides information about cognition that measures of central tendency do not.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it