MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997037042 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/noz175.664

NCOG-03. COGNITIVE CONCERNS AND PERFORMANCE IN PATIENTS WITH METASTATIC NON-SMALL CELL LUNG CANCER (mNSCLC)

2019· article· en· W2997037042 on OpenAlexaff
Annemarie C. Eggen, Nadine Richard, Gerald Shen, David Shultz, Natasha B. Leighl, Geoffrey Liu, A. Sun, Ingeborg Bosma, Anna K.L. Reyners, Mathilde Jalving, Gary Rodin, Kim Edelstein

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBrain Metastases and Treatment
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCognitionNeuropsychologyEffects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performanceBoston Naming TestInternal medicineDepression (economics)Lung cancerMultivariate analysisOncologyClinical psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract INTRODUCTION Cognitive concerns and objective cognitive impairment are both common in cancer patients, although the relationship between these variables is uncertain. Brain metastases have the potential to affect both outcomes. We examined the relationships between cognitive concerns, cognitive performance, and psychological disturbance in mNSCLC patients with and without brain metastases. METHODS mNSCLC patients completed standardized neuropsychological tests (HVLT-R, TMTA/B, COWA) and questionnaires measuring cognitive and neurobehavioral concerns, depression, demoralization, self-esteem, illness intrusiveness, and physical symptoms. Perceived cognitive impairment was defined as FACT-Cog scores ≤1.5 SD below the normative mean. Impaired cognitive performance was defined as ≥2 test scores ≤1.5 SD or one test score ≤2.0 SD below normative means. Multivariate analyses used the mean composite of neuropsychological test z-scores (COG-comp). Progressive disease (extra- and/or intracranial) was defined as radiological progression or clinical deterioration within one month before the study. RESULTS 74 patients participated (53% female; median age 62 (37–82); 30% EGFR mutated). Time since mNSCLC diagnosis was 11 months (median; 0–89). 50% had brain metastases, 21 of whom received cranial radiation (11 SRS, 10 WBRT±SRS). 27% reported cognitive concerns and 42% were impaired on objective testing (HVLT-R:34%, TMT:27%, COWA:16%). Neither was more common in patients with brain metastases. COG-comp (mean±SD: –0.39±0.91) was unrelated to cognitive concerns. In multivariate analyses, less depression (p< 0.01) and illness intrusiveness (p=0.03), and absence of disease progression (p=0.03) were related to better perceived cognitive function. No significant associations were found between cognitive performance and demographic, disease, or psychological variables. CONCLUSION Cognitive impairment is common in mNSCLC patients with or without brain metastases, but is independent of cognitive concerns. Cognitive concerns which are linked to depression, illness intrusiveness and disease progression, may be more likely to reflect the impact of cognitive changes in daily life. Both merit further clinical and research attention.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuro-OncologySame topicBrain Metastases and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207