Prospective memory impairment in chemotherapy-exposed early breast cancer survivors: Preliminary evidence from a clinical test
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
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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