The Experience of Cancer-Related Cognitive Impairment Across Common Cancers: Protocol for a Qualitative Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cancer-related cognitive impairment (CRCI) is commonly experienced by patients with cancer during treatment, and 35% of patients experience cognitive impairment after treatment completion. Impairments in memory, attention, executive functioning, and information processing speed are most reported and often negatively impact daily functioning and quality of life (QoL). Despite the large scale of reports, this adverse side effect is underinvestigated across common cancer types, and there is a lack of insight into the CRCI experience. OBJECTIVE: This qualitative synthesis aims to explore the evidence in relation to the experience of CRCI across common cancers. It also aims to understand the prevalence of CRCI across various cancer types, cognitive domains, and its impact on QoL and functional ability. METHODS: A comprehensive search of databases, including PubMed, American Psychological Association PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Scopus, will be conducted. A total of 2 independent reviewers will screen titles and abstracts for inclusion, followed by full-text screening. A third reviewer will resolve any arising conflicts in the process of data screening and inclusion. Subsequently, data extraction and quality assessment using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tool will be conducted. The results will be analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: This review is part of a PhD program funded in January 2023. The review commenced in June 2023, and data analysis is currently in progress. The qualitative synthesis will explore the experiences of CRCI across common cancers. The included studies are expected to report on numerous cancer types such as breast cancer, prostate cancer, leukemia, and lung cancer. The included study types are most likely to be interviews, focus groups, and surveys with qualitative components. CONCLUSIONS: This protocol highlights the need for a qualitative synthesis that will explore the experience of CRCI across common cancer types. It will provide valuable insight into the lived experience of CRCI and the cognitive domains that may be disproportionately affected. There is a growing demand for further management interventions and clinically tested treatments of CRCI and the qualitative exploration of patient experience is crucial for their development. This qualitative synthesis will inform future developments and will contribute to improving QoL after cancer. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/56888.
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 | 0.129 | 0.111 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.068 | 0.009 |
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".