Cognitive Effects and Depression Associated With Taxane-Based Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer Survivors: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This meta-analysis provides a longitudinal assessment of depression and cognitive impairment induced by taxane-based chemotherapy in women with breast cancer after 6 months of treatment. We highlighted the incidence and prevalence, the cognitive pattern in neuropsychological studies, and the relationship between chemotherapy-induced cognitive impairment and different risk factors. We estimated the effect sizes on each cognitive domain and differentiated effect sizes by each method of comparison of effects (i.e., baseline data, or control groups). Methods: The databases MEDLINE and Embase were searched for publications about taxane-related cognitive changes in patients with breast cancer published from 1980 to 2019. Cross-sectional and self-reported outcomes studies were excluded except for the depression item. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias with the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. We estimated effect sizes for each cognitive domain and differentiated effect sizes by each method of comparison of effects. The review is reported in compliance with the PRISMA Statement; it was registered prospectively in PROSPERO as CRD42020163255. Results: Eleven studies meeting the criteria were analyzed, which resulted in a sample of 1,057 patients with breast cancer who received chemotherapy including 820 patients (77%) who received taxane-based chemotherapy. Attention and concentration, depression, and executive function domains had significant chemotherapy-induced impairment across all comparison types. Statistically significant improvement was found in language and verbal memory when comparing chemotherapy patients' test scores with baseline or matched controls. Taxane-based chemotherapy had a non-significant effect on processing speed, visual memory, visuospatial, and motor function domains. Conclusions: The occurrence of chemotherapy-induced cognitive impairment 6 months or more after the course of treatment in people with breast cancer is frequent in the domains of attention, executive function, and depression. Other domains appear stable or improve with time after treatment cessation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.049 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".