Pretreatment Cancer-Related Cognitive Impairment in Hodgkin Lymphoma Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cancer-related cognitive impairment (CRCI) is one of the most serious side effects of cancer that negatively impacts the quality of life of cancer patients and survivors. There is evidence of CRCI in Hodgkin lymphoma patients (HL); however, there is a lack of studies examining the presence of cognitive deficits before starting any treatment in HL patients. METHODS: = 40) matched for age, sex, education, and premorbid intellect completed the neuropsychological battery and subjective and objective measures of affective distress and quality of life. RESULTS: The results showed impairment in three out of six cognitive domains: verbal memory and learning, speed of processing/psychomotor speed, and abstraction/executive functions in the HL patients before the initiation of any treatment. The speed of processing/psychomotor speed domain is negatively correlated with depression. CONCLUSION: Cognitive deterioration in verbal memory and learning and abstraction/executive functions domains in HL patients seems to occur before the initiation of treatment independently of anxiety, depression, or physical symptoms. This suggests that HL itself may cause cognitive deficits in these cognitive domains. However, the underlying causes of CRCI still remain unclear.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".