Psychiatric comorbidities in patients with brain tumors after radiotherapy – An intermediate report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Primary or secondary CNS tumors are among the most difficult to manage forms of cancer. Treatment of these tumors remains a challenge in oncology and the success rates for treatment of brain tumors are much lower than in extracerebral localizations. Because most chemotherapeutic agents do not cross the blood-brain barrier effectively and surgery is sometimes only palliative, radiotherapy remains the main method of treatment of these lesions. Both localized and generalized brain radiotherapy have numerous psychiatric complications. Objectives The objective of the study was to assess the psychiatric comorbidities in patients with brain tumors receiving radiotherapy. Aims This is an intermediate report of a larger study that assesses comorbidities in patients with brain tumors after radiotherapy. Methods Twenty-five patients with different localization brain tumors were included in this observational study before receiving radiotherapy. All patients were assessed using Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) for anxiety and depressive symptoms, Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA) for cognitive impairment and Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire–Short Form (Q-LES-Q-SF) at inclusion and after 3 months from finishing the radiotherapy sessions. Results Twenty-two patients completed the study. Nine patients received antidepressant treatment (sertraline, tianeptine) during the study for depressive symptoms or anxiety. Patients receiving antidepressants showed better scores on HADS, MOCA and Q-LES-Q-SF scales. Conclusions Antidepressant use in patients receiving radiotherapy for brain tumors could be neuroprotective and could improve quality of life. Disclosure of interest The authors have not supplied their declaration of competing interest.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".