Cognitive rehabilitation for brain tumor survivors: A pilot study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
140 Background: Brain tumor survivors often face unique challenges from chronic cognitive deficits such as memory problems or executive dysfunction. Cognitive rehabilitation is a relatively new field. With few well-controlled studies in cancer patients, oncology and supportive care teams lack accessible, reliable tools to address cognitive dysfunction. This pilot study evaluated the feasibility and potential efficacy of two behavioral interventions for brain tumor survivors. Methods: We compared two programs, each with 8 individual treatment sessions and daily homework. Goal Management Training (GMT) is a neuroscience-based integration of mindfulness and strategy training. The Brain Health Workshop (BHW) offers supportive psychoeducation about living with a brain tumor. Using a prospective randomized design, 6 brain tumor patients (with chronic cognitive dysfunction, ≥ 3 months post-radiation or surgery) were enrolled in GMT or BHW and completed a battery of measures at baseline and post-training. Composite scores were calculated by domain, with objective tests of attention, processing speed, memory, and executive functioning, and subjective measures of coping, mood, behavioral regulation and cognitive symptoms. Patient feedback was obtained in post-training qualitative interviews. Results: All patients (Table 1) completed all study activities. Analyses of group differences in composite change scores showed greater improvement in executive functions and greater attainment of pre-training functional goals in the GMT group (p's < .05). The BHW group showed a trend toward greater improvement in mood and behavioral regulation that did not reach statistical significance. Patients in both groups reported satisfaction with their program and continued, frequent (daily to every other day) use of their new knowledge following training. Conclusions: This pilot study demonstrated the feasibility of cognitive rehabilitation for brain tumor survivors between 1 and 8 years post-diagnosis. Results suggest unique benefits of each intervention that will be further explored in a larger clinical trial. [Table: see text]
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".