Exploring the effect of neurofeedback on postcancer cognitive impairment and fatigue: A pilot feasibility study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Postcancer cognitive impairment (PCCI) and fatigue are adverse effects that often persist following cancer treatment, and impact quality of life. The study purpose was to evaluate feasibility and effect of neurofeedback on cognitive functioning and fatigue in cancer survivors. Specifically, we aimed to test feasibility of recruitment strategies and our study protocol including outcome measures. Design: This pilot feasibility study used a 10-week wait-list design. Participants served as their own controls and received neurofeedback training twice a week for 10 weeks. Participants: The sample consisted of breast cancer survivors from Kingston, Ontario (n = 16). Methods: Outcomes were assessed using validated, self-report scales and neuropsychological tests before, during, and after neurofeedback. Findings: The neurofeedback protocol was feasible and resulted in significant decreases in perceived cognitive deficits, fatigue, sleep, and psychological symptoms. Implications for psychosocial providers: Neurofeedback may be an effective, non-invasive complementary therapy for PCCI in breast cancer survivors.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".