Cognitive Trajectories in Older Patients with Cancer Undergoing Radiotherapy—A Prospective Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cognitive function can be affected by cancer and/or its treatment, and older patients are at a particular risk. In a prospective observational study including patients ≥65 years referred for radiotherapy (RT), we aimed to investigate the association between patient- and cancer-related factors and cognitive function, as evaluated by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and sought to identify groups with distinct MoCA trajectories. The MoCA was performed at baseline (T0), RT completion (T1), and 8 (T2) and 16 (T3) weeks later, with scores ranging between 0 and 30 and higher scores indicating better function. Linear regression and growth mixture models were estimated to assess associations and to identify groups with distinct MoCA trajectories, respectively. Among 298 patients with a mean age of 73.6 years (SD 6.3), the baseline mean MoCA score was 24.0 (SD 3.7). Compared to Norwegian norm data, 37.9% had cognitive impairment. Compromised cognition was independently associated with older age, lower education, and physical impairments. Four groups with distinct trajectories were identified: the very poor (6.4%), poor (8.1%), fair (37.9%), and good (47.7%) groups. The MoCA trajectories were mainly stable. We conclude that cognitive impairment was frequent but, for most patients, was not affected by RT. For older patients with cancer, and in particular for those with physical impairments, we recommend an assessment of cognitive function.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".