Brain connectivity tracks effects of chemotherapy separately from behavioral measures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several studies in cancer research have suggested that cognitive dysfunction following chemotherapy, referred to in lay terms as "chemobrain", is a serious problem. At present, the changes in integrative brain function that underlie such dysfunction remain poorly understood. Recent developments in neuroimaging suggest that patterns of functional connectivity can provide a broadly applicable neuromarker of cognitive performance and other psychometric measures. The current study used multivariate analysis methods to identify patterns of disruption in resting state functional connectivity of the brain due to chemotherapy and the degree to which the disruptions can be linked to behavioral measures of distress and cognitive performance. Sixty two women (22 healthy control, 18 patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy, and 22 treated without chemotherapy) were evaluated with neurocognitive measures followed by self-report questionnaires and open eyes resting-state fMRI scanning at three time points: diagnosis (M0, pre-adjuvant treatment), 1 month (M1), and 7 months (M7) after treatment. The results indicated deficits in cognitive health of breast cancer patients immediately after chemotherapy that improved over time. This psychological trajectory was paralleled by a disruption and later recovery of resting-state functional connectivity, mostly in the parietal and frontal brain regions. Mediation analysis showed that the functional connectivity alteration pattern is a separable treatment symptom from the decreased cognitive health. Current study indicates that more targeted support for patients should be developed to ameliorate these multi-faceted side effects of chemotherapy treatment on neural functioning and cognitive health.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".