Neuropathic pain and neurocognitive functioning in children treated for acute lymphoblastic leukemia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) often experience treatment-related neurocognitive deficits and significant pain. Pain may exacerbate these cognitive impairments. This study examined neuropathic pain and neurocognitive outcomes in survivors of childhood ALL treated with contemporary therapy on a clinical trial (NCT00137111). There were 345 survivors (45% female, M = 6.9 years at diagnosis) who completed neurocognitive assessments including measures of sustained attention, learning and memory, and parent ratings of attention during at least one of 4 time points: on-therapy (Induction and Reinduction), end of therapy, and 2 years post-therapy. At-risk performance was defined as a score at least 1SD below the age-adjusted mean. Data on neuropathic pain (events, duration, and severity according NCI Common Toxicity Criteria) and pharmacologic pain management (opioids and gabapentin) were ascertained. Results showed that 135 survivors (39%) experienced neuropathic pain during treatment. Compared with those without pain, survivors with pain had greater memory impairments at end of therapy (California Verbal Learning Test [CVLT]-Total, 24% vs 12%, P = 0.046). Within the pain group, survivors who experienced a greater number of pain events (CVLT-Total = -0.88, P = 0.023) and those who were treated with opioids (versus gabapentin) had poorer learning and memory performance (CVLT-Total = -0.73, P = 0.011; Short Delay = -0.57, P = 0.024; Long Delay = -0.62, P = 0.012; and Learning Slope = -0.45, P = 0.042) across time points. These are considered medium-to-large effects (SD = 0.45-0.88). Neuropathic pain may be a risk factor for learning problems after therapy completion, and treatment for pain with opioids may also adversely affect neurocognitive performance. Therefore, patients who experience pain may require closer monitoring and additional intervention for neurocognitive impairment.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".