Factors associated with cognitive impairment during the first year of treatment for nonmetastatic breast cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Women with breast cancer are more likely to develop cognitive impairment (CI), insomnia, fatigue, and mood disturbance than individuals with other cancers. The main objectives of this study were to establish the prevalence of CI and examine the relationships between CI, insomnia, fatigue, and mood over the first year of breast cancer treatment. METHODS: Participants were recruited after diagnosis and completed validated measures of insomnia, objective and perceived CI, fatigue, and mood disturbance at four time points during the first year of treatment. A random intercepts cross-lagged panel model assessed relationships among symptoms over time. RESULTS: The sample included 98 women. Prevalence of objective CI ranged from 3.1% to 8.2% throughout the year, whereas 36.7% demonstrated a clinically meaningful decline in perceived CI from baseline to 4 months, which remained relatively stable. Greater perceived CI was associated with more fatigue (β = -0.78, z = 17.48, p < .01) and symptoms of insomnia (β = -0.58, z = 5.24, p < .01). Short-term fluctuations in perceived CI (p < .05), but not fatigue or insomnia, predicted future perceived CI. Fatigue (p < .001) was a significant predictor of future reported symptoms of fatigue and insomnia. CONCLUSION: Subjective CI is more prevalent than objective impairments. Fatigue, insomnia, and perceived CI remain stable and are associated during the first year of treatment. Changes in insomnia and fatigue may have little effect on future perceived cognition. Women with breast cancer likely require targeted intervention for these side effects.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".