Verbal Learning and Memory Function and the Influencing Factors on Breast Cancer Survivors: A Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Impairment of cognitive function is a common complaint by post-chemotherapy breast cancer survivors, specifically impairment of verbal learning and memory. The objective of this study was to identify the association between age, duration of education, chemotherapy type, hormone therapy usage, menopausal status, sleep quality, fatigue, stress, and hemoglobin (Hb) levels to memory and verbal learning function. This cross-sectional study consisted of 82 post-chemotherapy breast cancer survivors, 81 non-chemotherapy survivors, and 80 non-cancer female patients in two hospitals. The data were collected using the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test in Indonesian, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, 10-item Perceived Stress Scale, and the Piper Fatigue Scale-12. All instruments were already adopted into Indonesian. Characteristic data were obtained from hospital reports. The mean age of the respondents was 43.06 (8.18) years, 197 (81.1%) had been educated for ≤12 years, 82 (33.7%) were post-chemotherapy survivors, 46 (18.9%) were using hormonal therapy, and 125 (51.4%) had gone through menopause. Among the remaining respondents, 91 (37.4%) were anemic, 124 (51.0%) had poor sleep quality, and 115 (47.3%) experienced moderate fatigue. Twenty-one (25.6%) of post-chemotherapy survivors had a high possibility of having dementia. The significant variables associated with memory and verbal learning function included age, stress, survivor type, chemotherapy category, sleep quality, and fatigue. The insignificant variables included the length of education, hormone therapy usage, menopausal status, and hemoglobin levels. A logistic regression analysis showed that stress was the most influential variable with an odds ratio of 1.159. It is recommended that nurses consider the significant variables when providing services to post-chemotherapy breast cancer survivors.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".