Androgen deprivation therapy and cognitive decline in the NEON-PC study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background/Objective Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has been associated with cognitive decline, but results have been heterogenous. We describe changes in cognitive performance in patients with prostate cancer (PCa), according to treatment with ADT, during the 1st year after PCa diagnosis. Methods Between February 2018 and March 2021, 348 patients with PCa treated at the Instituto Português de Oncologia do Porto were evaluated with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), before treatment and after one year (1y). ADT was used in 183 participants, and 165 were treated without ADT (total prostatectomy, radiotherapy, brachytherapy, active surveillance). Cognitive decline was defined as the decrease in MoCA from baseline to the 1y-evaluation below 1.5SD of the distribution of the MoCA variation in the whole cohort. Participants scoring below age- and education-based normative reference values in MoCA were considered to have probable cognitive impairment (PCI). Multivariate logistic regression was used to estimate age- and education-adjusted OR (aOR) of the association between ADT and cognitive decline/incident PCI. Results/Discussion PCI was observed in 12.4% of the patients at baseline. Mean MoCA scores increased from baseline to the 1y-evaluation (22.4 vs. 22.9, p = 0.001), and 51.2% of PCI cases at baseline had normal MoCA scores at 1y. Cognitive decline was most frequent in the ADT group (9.3% vs. 3.6%, p = 0.034), although the aOR was 2.44 (95%CI:0.89-6.71). The 1yr cumulative incidence of PCI was 10.4% (95%CI:6.2%-16.2%) in the ADT-group and 2.8% (95%CI:0.8-%-7.1%) in the non-ADT group [aOR=3.15 (95%CI:0.97-10.25)]. Conclusions ADT was associated with a decrease in the cognitive performance of PCa patients during the 1st year after diagnosis. The completion of the 1y-evaluation in the whole cohort (n = 600) is needed to confirm these preliminary results. Funding POCI-01-0145FEDER-032358;PTDC/SAU-EPI/32358/2017; UIDB/4750/2020;SFRH/BD/119390/2016 Key messages Half of the cases with cognitive impairment at baseline improved at one-year. Patients treated with ADT seem to be affected by cognitive decline more frequently.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".