Chemotherapy-Induced Cognitive Impairment and Hippocampal Neurogenesis: A Review of Physiological Mechanisms and Interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A wide range of cognitive deficits, including memory loss associated with hippocampal dysfunction, have been widely reported in cancer survivors who received chemotherapy. Changes in both white matter and gray matter volume have been observed following chemotherapy treatment, with reduced volume in the medial temporal lobe thought to be due in part to reductions in hippocampal neurogenesis. Pre-clinical rodent models confirm that common chemotherapeutic agents used to treat various forms of non-CNS cancers reduce rates of hippocampal neurogenesis and impair performance on hippocampally-mediated learning and memory tasks. We review the pre-clinical rodent literature to identify how various chemotherapeutic drugs affect hippocampal neurogenesis and induce cognitive impairment. We also review factors such as physical exercise and environmental stimulation that may protect against chemotherapy-induced neurogenic suppression and hippocampal neurotoxicity. Finally, we review pharmacological interventions that target the hippocampus and are designed to prevent or reduce the cognitive and neurotoxic side effects of chemotherapy.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".