MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4253590578 · doi:10.22215/etd/2016-11491

A Longitudinal Assessment of Cytokines and Prospective Memory Functioning in Chemotherapy Exposed Breast Cancer Patients

2016· dissertation· en· W4253590578 on OpenAlexaff
Marc Bedard

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer-related cognitive impairment studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerMedicineChemotherapyProspective cohort studyOncologyLongitudinal studyCognitionPsychological interventionProspective memoryInternal medicineCancerPsychologyClinical psychologyPsychiatryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study sought to evaluate whether altered levels of cytokines may be associated with prospective memory (PM) deficits among breast cancer patients, as examined subjectively and objectively in a longitudinal case-control design, and to investigate possible predictors of these disturbances.As patients often complain of cognitive dysfunction, a secondary aim was to examine whether PM may better account for the self-reported deficits, or if dissociations may be attributable to reduced memory self-awareness.Seventeen women with breast cancer were assessed before chemotherapy and three months post-chemotherapy, and were compared with 17 age-and education-matched healthy controls.Patient PM deficits were found to emerge prior to chemotherapy, and IL-18 may be associated with changes in aspects of PM.Patients did not report more difficulties in PM, and subjective-objective associations were not apparent or explained by memory self-awareness.Interventions to ameliorate PM and associates of systemic inflammation should be investigated.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCancer-related cognitive impairment studiesFrench-language works237,207