A Hypothesis-Generating Study Using Electrophysiology to Examine Cognitive Function in Colon Cancer Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to describe the trajectory of cognitive function using neuropsychological tests and electrophysiological measures in individuals receiving 5FU/oxaliplatin chemotherapy for colon cancer. METHODS: A total of 10 participants were tested at baseline (within 3 weeks of starting chemotherapy), 6 months (coinciding with the end of chemotherapy treatment), and 12 months (approximately 6 months post-chemotherapy). Participants completed neuropsychological tests and electrophysiology recordings of P300 event-related potential (ERP) elicited by a sustained attention to response task paired with experience sampling of attentional states (subjective reports of on-task or mind wandering). RESULTS: No change in mean neuropsychological test performance was observed. Comparison of mean P300 ERP amplitudes as a function of attentional states (on-task vs. mind wandering) revealed no main effect of attentional state observed at baseline or 6 months, but a significant effect of attention was observed at 12 months, consistent with effects observed in healthy individuals. CONCLUSIONS: Future studies can consider sustained attention constructs when studying cognitive function in colon cancer patients.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".