Risk factors and prevalence of cognitive deficits in women with gynecologic malignancies.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
9601 Background: Cognitive impairment has implications in counseling, treatment, and survivorship for women with gynecologic malignancies. The purpose of our study was to evaluate prevalence and risk factors associated with cognitive impairment. Methods: After IRB approval, 165 women at an urban ambulatory facility were queried using a Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA), Depression Scale, Wong-Baker pain scale, and neuropathy scale. The association of cognitive deficit with age, education, race/ethnicity, disease site, stage, treatment, pain, neuropathy, anxiety and depression was evaluated. Results: Mean MOCA score was 24.1 (range 13-30.) 24% of patients had MOCA scores less than 22. Low scores (<22) were associated with older age, non-white race/ethnicity, lower education level, uterine cancer, and pain > 5 (p<0.05). There was a trend toward lower scores for with chemotherapy and radiation treatment (p=0.10). Low cognition scores were not associated with pain medication use. Conclusions: There was a high prevalence of cognitive deficits in women with gynecologic malignancies. Further research is needed to evaluate the impact of deficits on treatment adherence and outcomes. Variable Normal cognition (≥22) Low cognition (<22) p-value Age at diagnosis (years -mean) 56.7 (12.6) 63.2 (11.6) 0.005 Time since diagnosis (weeks - median) 129 108 0.36 (Wilcoxon – skewed distribution) Ethnic background African American 26 (63.4) 15 (36.6) 0.02 Hispanic 28 (68.3) 13 (31.7) White 67 (87.0) 10 (13.0) Other 4 (80.0) 1 (20.0) Education Middle school or less 4 (40.0) 6 (60.0) 0.004 Any HS 38 (69.1) 17 (30.9) College and higher 82 (83.7) 16 (16.3) Disease site Uterus 67 (70.5) 28 (29.5) 0.012 (Fisher Exact) Ovary/fallopian tube/PP 44 (89.8) 5 (10.2) Cervix 10 (83.3) 2 (16.7) Vulva 4 (50.0) 4 (50.0) Stage I/II 82 (78.1) 23 (21.9) 0.53 III/IV 33 (73.3) 12 (26.7) Treatment variables No further treatment (surgery only) 60 (79.0) 16 (21.0) 0.10 RT only 3 (50.0) 3 (50.0) Chemo only 38 (82.6) 8 (17.4) Both chemo/RT 22 (64.7) 12 (35.3) Pain <5 106 (79.7) 27 (20.3) 0.03 ≥5 19 (61.3) 12 (38.7) Taking pain medications No 92 (78.6) 25 (21.4) 0.22 Yes 32 (69.6) 14 (30.4)
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".