Self-rated cognitive functions following chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer: a 6-month prospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to evaluate subjective (self-rated), family-rated, and objective (researcher-rated) cognitive functions in patients with breast cancer after chemotherapy. METHOD: We conducted a prospective study to trace self-rated cognitive functions in 30 patients with breast cancer at the completion of chemotherapy (T0) and 6 months later (T1). Subjective cognitive functions were assessed with Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ), Dysexecutive Questionnaire (DEX-S), and Everyday Memory Checklist (EMC-S) for attention, executive function, and episodic memory, respectively. Their family members also completed DEX-I and EMC-I for executive function and episodic memory, respectively. We also examined objective cognitive functions. Self-rated cognitive functions were compared with the normative data. They were compared between T0 and T1. We calculated correlation coefficients between self-rated and other cognitive functions. RESULTS: At T0, 6 (20.0%) and 2 (6.7%) participants showed higher DEX-S and EMC-S scores than the normative data, respectively, while no participant had abnormal CFQ scores. At T1, DEX-S and EMC-S scores were normalized in 3 (50.0%) and 2 (100.0%) participants, respectively. No participant showed increases in CFQ scores. No changes were found in objective cognitive functions from T0 to T1. DEX-S and DEX-I or EMC-S and EMC-I scores were correlated at both T0 and T1, which did not survive multiple corrections. There was no association between subjective and objective cognitive functions. CONCLUSION: Impairments in subjective cognition may be transient after chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer. Furthermore, patients and their families appear to share similar prospects on their cognitive functions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".