Effects of adjuvant 5FU/oxaliplatin chemotherapy in individuals treated for colon cancer on cognitive and mobility function.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
750 Background: Cognitive impairment has been reported for patients receiving chemotherapy; however, the data is limited with respect to 5FU/oxaliplatin based therapy in colorectal cancer patients. We conducted a pilot study to determine if there was cognitive or mobility impairment in patients receiving adjuvant 5Fu/oxaliplatin chemotherapy. Methods: At baseline, end of chemotherapy and 6 months post chemotherapy, participant completed a neuropsychological test battery, which included the Stroop, Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised (HVLT-R), and Trail Making A & B (TMT A&B), a 6-minute walk test (6MWT), a measure of physical function, and a functional mobility testing battery, which included timed up and go (TUG) and gait speed. Demographic information and self-reported physical activity, using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ), were also collected at these time points. For the analysis of neuropsychological and mobility test scores, the paired t-test was used to test for the differences and assess the change in the mean scores from the baseline, 6-months and 12 months. Results: 13 patients were enrolled, 10 have completed the 12 month evaluation. No significant changes were noted in the HVLT-R, Stroop, and TMT-A and -B mean scores after completion of chemotherapy compared to baseline. Compared to baseline, no significant changes were observed for 6MWT, TUG, GS, or leisure-time physical activity after completion of chemotherapy. Conclusions: In this small pilot study, there were no significant changes in chemotherapy-associated cognitive, physical function, or functional mobility noted from baseline to the end of chemotherapy. In addition, physical activity levels and average time spent sitting did not change significantly.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".