Abstracts of the IPOS 12th World Congress of Psycho‐Oncology, 25–29 May 2010, Quebec City, QC, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This project aimed to test the feasibility of a group psychological intervention that was designed to improve cognitive performance in people who have completed treatments for cancer.It was hypothesised that group cognitive rehabilitation would improve objective cognitive performance, subjective cognitive function and quality of life.Method: Eighteen adult cancer survivors who were at least 6 months post-treatment participated in a group cognitive behavioural intervention led by two psychologists.The manualised intervention, developed for this study, involved four 2-hour sessions and between session homework.Sessions involved education, skills training and skills practice on topics such as memory, attention, and fatigue.Participants completed neuropsychological assessments and self-report measures of subjective cognitive function, quality of life, and emotional distress at pre-and post-treatment.Results: Preliminary results showed that participants significantly improved in their total score on the Repeatable Battery for Assessment of Neuropsychological Status, despite completing an alternate form at post-test.Improvements at retest were much greater for intervention group participants than for a comparison group of community participants who had not had cancer and who did not attend cognitive rehabilitation.Participants were highly satisfied with the intervention.Conclusions: These results support further testing of the intervention.For the first time, we have demonstrated that cognitive rehabilitation strategies which have previously been reported in the published literature only as individual interventions in this population also have promise when delivered in a group format.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.292 | 0.040 |
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".