Neurocognitive impact of cranial radiation in adults with cancer: an update of recent findings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Radiation to the brain is associated with adverse effects on cognition in cancer patients. Advances in technology have improved treatment efficacy, while new or adjuvant approaches continue to be developed. The long-term impact of both established and newer treatments on cognition is an active area of research. RECENT FINDINGS: The article reviews the 15 studies published between January 2015 and October 2016 that include data on neurocognitive functions following radiation to the brain in adults with brain metastases, primary brain tumors, or other cancers. These studies examine neurocognitive outcomes in relation to radiation treatment delivery, pharmacological interventions, and biomarkers of brain injury. SUMMARY: Advances in radiotherapy protocols have reduced neurotoxic side-effects. Implementation of standardized, validated neurocognitive measures and biomarkers of brain injury provide new insights into the impact of cranial radiation on cognitive functions. Several promising new lines of research will benefit from further study to address common challenges in the field, including high rates of attrition in longitudinal trials, absence of control groups, small sample sizes, and heterogeneous patient groups.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".