Patient-reported cognitive impairments among women with breast cancer randomly assigned to hormonal therapy (HT) alone versus chemotherapy followed by hormonal therapy (C+HT): Results from the Trial Assigning Individualized Options for Treatment (TAILORx).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
9020 Background: Cognitive impairment is a complication of chemotherapy. Perceived cognitive impairments (PCI) were prospectively assessed among TAILORx participants randomized to HT alone versus chemotherapy followed by HT (C+HT). Methods: TAILORx participants with an OncoType DX Recurrence Score 11-25 were randomly assigned to HT or C+HT. PCI, fatigue, endocrine symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQL) were assessed at baseline, 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months, using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) in 455 patients enrolled after 1/15/10. PCI change scores > 4.5 from baseline were defined a priori as clinically meaningful. Linear regression (LR) was used to model PCI scores on baseline PCI, treatment and other factors. Results: PCI scores were significantly worse at 3, 6, and 12 months compared to baseline for both groups (Table). The decline was greater for C+HT than HT at 3 months, but scores were similar at 12 months. Tests of an interaction between menopausal status and treatment were non-significant. PCI correlated with fatigue (r = 0.57-0.64) but not FACT Emotional well-being (EWB; r = 0.28-0.38); controlling for EWB did not account for differences in PCI change scores between treatment arms. Conclusions: Our study is the first to examine PCI among breast cancer patients randomized to receive C+HT vs. HT alone. C+HT was associated with greater declines in PCI at 3 months, but at 12 months PCI was similar in the C+HT and HT groups. PCI was associated with fatigue but not EWB. Pre- and post-menopausal groups demonstrated the same pattern of change. Since this study did not include a control group of patients not treated with HT, further study is required to determine if and to what extent HT contributes to PCI. [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 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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".