The effect of hippocampal sparing during prophylactic cranial irradiation on the preservation of neurocognitive functions in patients with small cell lung cancer: a preliminary study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary: Prophylactic cerebral irradiation (PCI) is the standard of care for patients with limited small cell lung cancer (SCLC). Cerebral irradiation is associated with deterioration of patients' quality of life in terms of cognitive function, in which hippocampus plays a critical role. Protection of the hippocampus during PCI aims to reduce the adverse effects of ionizing radiation on neurocognitive function, which may be important for optimal quality of life. To date, subjective psychological tests have been used as a methodical assessment of cognitive function in patients after PCI. In the present study, we attempted to evaluate the effect of hippocampal sparing during PCI on the preservation of cognitive functions in patients with SCLC, using two diagnostic and screening tests: Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) Short Scale and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) Scale. Assessment was made at three time points: before start of radiation, immediately after completion of irradiation and 3 months after radiation therapy. Our results indicate, that after radiation therapy there is a deterioration in cognitive functions. We additionally found, that the results of both tests after radiation therapy differed significantly according to the gender and education of patients. Following PCI, cognitive functions deteriorate in SCLC patients, even when radiation doses are reduced in the hippocampal area. This trend persists at least 3 months after the end of brain irradiation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".