A review of cognitive screening tools in cancer
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
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Cancer-related cognitive impairment (CRCI) is highly prevalent, and assessment of cognition is crucial in providing optimal cancer care. Neuropsychological assessment (NPA) can be lengthy and expensive. Cognitive screening tools are plenty but validity has not been thoroughly studied for use in cancer patients. RECENT FINDINGS: Our search of the recent literature revealed that the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Mini-Mental State Examination, and Clock Draw Test were the most frequently studied objective screening tools. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Cognitive Function and the Cognitive Symptom Checklist-Work 21 were the most commonly studied subjective measures of perceived cognitive impairment. Evidence supports using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment or the Clock Draw Test over the Mini-Mental State Examination to screen for cognitive impairment within specific patient populations. In addition, adding a subjective measure of cognitive impairment (e.g., Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Cognitive Function) may increase diagnostic sensitivity. SUMMARY: These suggest that cognitive screening tools may have a role in screening for CRCI, particularly when full NPA is not feasible. Researchers must continue to conduct high-quality studies to build an evidence to guide best practices in screening for CRCI.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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