Prospective memory impairment in chemotherapy-exposed early breast cancer survivors: Preliminary evidence from a clinical test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report the results of a secondary analysis of a cross-sectional study (Paquet et al., 2013 Paquet, L., Collins, B., Song, X., Chinneck, A., Bedard, M., & Verma, S. (2013). A pilot study of prospective memory functioning in early breast cancer survivors. Breast, 22 (4), 455–461.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) to evaluate the cognitive operations involved in prospective memory (PM) deficits exhibited by chemotherapy-exposed breast cancer (BC) survivors. PM was assessed with the memory for intentions screening test administered to 80 patients and 80 healthy controls. Patients performed worse than controls on the PM tasks and had more “omission” errors (indices of the prospective component of the tasks) than the controls. No group differences emerged on a recognition test. Although further studies will be needed to disentangle the multiple cognitive operations involved in PM, these findings are consistent with the notion that self-initiated retrieval processes rather than encoding are implicated in PM impairment among BC survivors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".