Identifying Themes for Assessing Cancer-Related Cognitive Impairment: Topic Modeling and Qualitative Content Analysis of Public Online Comments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cancer-related cognitive impairment (CRCI) is a common and significant adverse effect of cancer and its therapies. However, its definition and assessment remain difficult due to limitations of currently available measurement tools. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate qualitative themes related to the cognitive effects of cancer to help guide development of assessments that are more specific than what is currently available. METHODS: We applied topic modeling and inductive qualitative content analysis to 145 public online comments related to cognitive effects of cancer. RESULTS: Topic modeling revealed 2 latent topics that we interpreted as representing internal and external factors related to cognitive effects. These findings lead us to hypothesize regarding the potential contribution of locus of control to CRCI. Content analysis suggested several major themes including symptoms, emotional/psychological impacts, coping, "chemobrain" is real, change over time, and function. There was some conceptual overlap between the 2 methods regarding internal and external factors related to patient experiences of cognitive effects. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that coping mechanisms and locus of control may be important themes to include in assessments of CRCI. Future directions in this field include prospective acquisition of free-text responses to guide development of assessments that are more sensitive and specific to cognitive function in patients with cancer.
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 | 0.042 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".