Investigation of a neuropsychological screen for chemo-fog
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on chemotherapy-induced cognitive impairment (the term ‘‘chemo-fog’’ is used by many investigators) supports the occurrence of subtle declines in function for a subset of recipients. Identification of vulnerable individuals via comprehensive neuropsychological batteries is complicated due to their lack of clinical utility and increased risk of misclassification. The goal of this paper was to evaluate the ability of a reduced battery to detect chemotherapy-related cognitive impairments. Data from our previous study (Ouimet et al. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 31:73–89, 2009) were used to compare a comprehensive neuropsychological test battery comprising 23 tests with a reduced battery consisting of a subset of nine tests. A standardized regression-based approach revealed that a comparable numbers of participants were identified by both batteries, suggesting that individuals vulnerable to chemotherapy-induced cognitive impairment can be identified by a more selective battery. Further work is needed to clarify the neuropsychological tests most sensitive to detecting impairments associated with chemotherapy so that assessment batteries can be limited to these tests.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".