A randomised controlled trial evaluating two cognitive rehabilitation approaches for cancer survivors with perceived cognitive impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Up to 70% of survivors report cognitive symptoms after chemotherapy. We compared two cognitive rehabilitation programs to a control group in cancer survivors. METHODS: Study population were adult cancer survivors with cognitive symptoms 6-60 months after adjuvant chemotherapy. Participants randomised to: Attention Process Training (APT), Compensatory Strategy Training (CST), or control group. Active interventions comprised 6-week, 2-h/week small group sessions. ASSESSMENTS: pre- and post-intervention, 6- and 12-months later. Primary outcome was change in cognitive symptoms (FACT-COG-PCI subscale) between baseline and post-intervention. Secondary endpoints included objective neuropsychological performance, Functional Impact Assessment (FIA), patient-reported outcome measures, and associations. Analyses were on an intention-to-treat basis. Analysis of covariance mixed models were used for continuous outcomes. RESULTS: Sixty-five participants were randomised (APT n = 21; CST n = 24; controls n = 20): 94% breast cancer, median age 54. Median time since chemotherapy 20.7 months. FACT-COG-PCI, clinical neuropsychological T-scores, and FIA improved in all groups over time, but no significant differences between arms. On mean neuropsychological T-scores 19/65 (29%) were impaired at baseline; post-intervention impairment controls 31.3%, CST 16.7%, APT 20.0%. On FIA at baseline, nine were impaired; this decreased to three post-intervention (one/group). FACT-COG-PCI was weakly associated with neuropsychological tests (rho = 0.24, p = 0.051) at baseline, and had no association with FIA. Neuropsychological total mean T-score was moderately positively associated with FIA (rho = 0.37, p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: There were no significant differences between intervention groups and controls using linear mixed models adjusted for baseline scores. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Cognitive symptoms and neuropsychological test scores improve over time.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".