MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367173179 · doi:10.1097/nnr.0000000000000660

An Evaluation of the Multifactorial Model of Cancer-Related Cognitive Impairment

2023· article· en· W4367173179 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer-related cognitive impairment studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of California, San FranciscoNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute of Nursing ResearchNational Cancer InstituteOncology Nursing Foundation
KeywordsCognitive impairmentCognitionPsychologyMedicineGerontologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Up to 45% of patients report cancer-related cognitive impairment (CRCI). A variety of characteristics are associated with the occurrence and/or severity of CRCI. However, an important gap in knowledge of risk factors for CRCI is the relative contribution of each factor. The multifactorial model of cancer-related cognitive impairment (MMCRCI) is a conceptual model of CRCI that can be used to evaluate the strength of relationships between various factors and CRCI. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to use structural regression methods to evaluate the MMCRCI using data from a large sample of outpatients receiving chemotherapy ( n = 1,343). Specifically, the relationships between self-reported CRCI and four MMCRCI concepts (i.e., social determinants of health, patient-specific factors, treatment factors, and co-occurring symptoms) were examined. The goals were to determine how well the four concepts predicted CRCI and determine the relative contribution of each concept to deficits in perceived cognitive function. METHODS: This study is part of a larger, longitudinal study that evaluated the symptom experience of oncology outpatients receiving chemotherapy. Adult patients were diagnosed with breast, gastrointestinal, gynecological, or lung cancer; had received chemotherapy within the preceding 4 weeks; were scheduled to receive at least two additional cycles of chemotherapy; were able to read, write, and understand English; and gave written informed consent. Self-reported CRCI was assessed using the attentional function index. Available study data were used to define the latent variables. RESULTS: On average, patients were 57 years of age, college educated, and with a mean Karnofsky Performance Status score of 80. Of the four concepts evaluated, whereas co-occurring symptoms explained the largest amount of variance in CRCI, treatment factors explained the smallest amount of variance. A simultaneous structural regression model that estimated the joint effect of the four exogenous latent variables on the CRCI latent variable was not significant. DISCUSSION: These findings suggest that testing individual components of the MMCRCI may provide useful information on the relationships among various risk factors, as well as refinements of the model. In terms of risk factors for CRCI, co-occurring symptoms may be more significant than treatment factors, patient-specific factors, and/or social determinants of health in patients receiving chemotherapy.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.446
Threshold uncertainty score0.352

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.201
GPT teacher head0.516
Teacher spread0.316 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it