Factors associated with cognitive impairment and cognitive concerns in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Knowledge regarding cognitive problems in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) is limited. Such problems may include both patient-reported cognitive concerns and demonstrable cognitive impairment. Greater understanding of these outcomes is needed to inform rehabilitation strategies for these difficulties. We aimed to identify the frequency of cognitive problems and associated factors in patients with mNSCLC. Methods In this cross-sectional study, adults with mNSCLC completed validated neuropsychological tests and self-report questionnaires measuring cognitive concerns, neurobehavioral concerns, depression, demoralization, illness intrusiveness, self-esteem, and physical symptoms. Cognitive impairment (performance based) was defined according to International Cancer and Cognition Task Force criteria. Clinically significant cognitive concerns were defined by a score ≥1.5 SD below the normative mean on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Cognitive Function Perceived Cognitive Impairment (FACT-Cog PCI). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify associated factors. Results Of 238 patients approached, 77 participated (median age: 62 years; range: 37-82). Brain metastases were present in 41 patients (53%), and 23 (29%) received cranial irradiation. Cognitive impairment and cognitive concerns were present in 31 (40%) and 20 patients (26%), respectively. Cognitive impairment and cognitive concerns co-occurred in 10 patients (13%), but their severity was unrelated. Cognitive impairment was associated with cranial irradiation (odds ratio [OR] = 2.89; P = .04), whereas cognitive concerns were associated with greater illness intrusiveness (OR = 1.04; P = .03) and lower self-esteem (OR = 0.86; P = .03). Conclusions Cognitive impairment and cognitive concerns are both common in patients with mNSCLC but are not necessarily related, and their risk factors differ. The association of illness intrusiveness and self-esteem with cognitive concerns can inform therapeutic interventions in this population.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".