MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cognitive support program for patients with brain metastases.

2017· article· en· W2724641768 on OpenAlexaff
Nadine Richard, Lori J. Bernstein, David Shultz, Normand Laperrière, Paul Kongkham, Alejandro Berlín, Tatiana Conrad, Barbara‐Ann Millar, Mark Bernstein, Gelareh Zadeh, Kim Edelstein

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer-related cognitive impairment studies
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineQuality of life (healthcare)Psychological interventionCognitionIntervention (counseling)Cognitive trainingExecutive functionsClinical psychologyPsychiatryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

TPS2086 Background: Brain metastases occur in ~30% of cancer patients. While treatment options continue to evolve, prognosis remains poor in both morbidity and survival, and quality of life (QOL) is increasingly emphasized. Most patients will experience cognitive dysfunction. Deficits in executive and self-regulatory functions, memory, and communication interfere with patients’ functional independence, participation in valued activities, relationships and QOL; they also affect families and caregivers. There are currently no established interventions for oncology and supportive care teams to address cognitive dysfunction and its impact on patient and family QOL. This study targets this gap in knowledge and clinical practice through development and piloting of a novel cognitive support program (CSP) for brain metastasis patients and their primary caregivers. Methods: Building on relevant neuroscience and behavioral research in other cognitively-impaired populations, we designed the CSP as a brief, structured, client-centered program. Using a prospective longitudinal design, 24 cognitively-impaired patients are being recruited from an outpatient multidisciplinary brain metastasis clinic. Each patient, together with their primary caregiver, attends 3 weekly individual sessions to learn strategies for memory, communication and executive functions. At-home practice between sessions applies the strategies in daily activities. Feasibility will be assessed through retention and adherence. Preliminary efficacy will be assessed by reliable change on cognitive, functional and QOL measures completed by patients pre-, post-, and 3 months following the CSP intervention. Caregivers will complete ratings of patient functioning and their own QOL at the same intervals. Analyses of variance will examine CSP intervention effects, with regression analyses to explore moderating effects of participant demographics, baseline levels of cognitive impairment, disease and treatment factors (e.g., volume and location of brain lesions, CNS-directed treatments received). Results of this pilot trial will lay the groundwork for a future randomized trial and further development of cognitive supports for brain metastasis patients and their families.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.129
GPT teacher head0.526
Teacher spread0.397 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCancer-related cognitive impairment studiesFrench-language works237,207