MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2772149993 · doi:10.1037/cep0000144

Chemotherapy and cognitive impairment: An animal model approach.

2017· review· en· W2772149993 on OpenAlexafffund
Gordon Winocur

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer-related cognitive impairment studies
Canadian institutionsBaycrest Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanadian Cancer Society
KeywordsCognitionNeuropsychologyPsycINFOMedicinePsychological interventionDonepezilConfoundingCognitive impairmentPsychologyClinical psychologyDiseaseDementiaMEDLINEPsychiatryInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A substantial number of cancer survivors who undergo chemotherapy report cognitive disturbances that severely limit daily function (chemobrain). Despite supportive neuropsychological evidence, there is controversy over whether cognitive impairment is caused by the chemotherapy or is the result of potentially confounding factors that include the disease itself, age, and psychological stress. Our research program, conducted on rodents, has confirmed that a range of cognitive processes, mediated in particular by hippocampal and prefrontal brain regions, are affected by anticancer drugs in combination with tumor development and that many of the effects are long lasting. This work has also provided evidence of protective factors (cognitive reserve, physical exercise, environmental enrichment) and the potential of pharmacological treatment (donepezil) interventions in reducing these effects. (PsycINFO Database Record

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations8
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentaleSame topicCancer-related cognitive impairment studiesFrench-language works237,207