Acupuncture versus cognitive behavioral therapy for cognitive impairment in cancer survivors with insomnia: Implications for personalized medicine.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
11522 Background: Cognitive impairment is a prevalent condition among cancer survivors that lacks effective treatment and can be maintained and exacerbated by poor sleep. This study explored whether treating insomnia with acupuncture or Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia (CBT-I) improves subjective and objective cognitive functions in cancer survivors. Methods: We analyzed cognitive outcomes from a pragmatic randomized trial comparing acupuncture versus CBT-I for cancer survivors with insomnia. Analysis was limited to those reporting cognitive impairment at baseline. Acupuncture and CBT-I were delivered over 8 weeks. Perceived cognitive ability was assessed using the Brown Attention-Deficit Disorder Scale (BADDS). Objective cognitive function was evaluated with the Buschke Selective Reminding Test (BSRT). All outcomes were evaluated at baseline, Week 8 (end of intervention), and Week 20 (12 weeks post-intervention). Results: Among 99 cancer survivors, mean age was 60.4 years, 56.6% were women, and 26.3% were non-white. The most common cancer types were breast (31.3%) and prostate (19.2%). Perceived cognitive ability improved in both acupuncture and CBT-I groups at weeks 8 and 20 relative to baseline (all P < 0.001). No significant between-group differences were noted in BADDS total score (p = 0.28), but the CBT-I group demonstrated a better BADDS attention subscale score than the acupuncture group at weeks 8 and 20 (p = 0.031). With regards to objective cognitive functions assessed by BSRT, acupuncture improved attention (p = 0.017), learning (p = 0.040), and memory (p = 0.0020) at Week 8, whereas CBT-I only improved attention at Week 20 (p = 0.0002); between-group differences were not statistically significant. Conclusions: Among cancer survivors with insomnia, both acupuncture and CBT-I improved cognitive impairment relative to baseline, but their relative effects differed: the CBT-I group showed slightly better subjective attention, whereas the acupuncture group may have improved objective memory. Further investigation of these two therapies may lead to effective and personalized interventions for cancer survivors. Clinical trial information: NCT02356575.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".