Stress Matters: A Case Report in Occupational Therapy for Cancer-Related Cognitive Impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This case report details occupational therapy (OT) for a woman with breast cancer experiencing cancer-related cognitive impairment (CRCI), referred to OT for memory strategies. Method: Preliminary subjective and cognitive screenings were completed with further/finer assessment diarized. Results: While the cognitive aspect of CRCI is often addressed via OT, in this case, stress was the most prevalent barrier to function reported. Stress was identified as: impacting occupational engagement, CRCI presentation, interfering with return-to-work goals, and accentuated given the COVID-19 pandemic. A common cancer-specific stress screening tool appeared inadequate in identifying the impact and interplay of stress on function, necessitating a more narrative exploration around these themes. Intervention details, clinical reasoning, and outcomes are profiled in this case report. Conclusion: Current published literature showcases the multi-factorial nature of CRCI, highlighting stress as an important, though often overlooked, factor, and thus an area for OT practice growth. Developing the OT approach to functional management of CRCI involves further exploration and appreciation of the relationship between stress and function. Clinical case studies offer a foundation and serve as a first step for expanding the value of OT in approaching CRCI and stress from a functional perspective, particularly considering the stressors of the current pandemic.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".