MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394681044 · doi:10.2196/56888

The Experience of Cancer-Related Cognitive Impairment Across Common Cancers: Protocol for a Qualitative Systematic Review

2024· article· en· W4394681044 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Maryam Ibrar, Harleen Kaur, Ashleigh Main, Haruno McCartney, Roma Maguire, Mario A. Parra

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer-related cognitive impairment studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintProtocol (science)Cognitive impairmentCognitionQualitative researchMedicinePsychologyAlternative medicineComputer sciencePsychiatryWorld Wide WebPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.932

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.313
GPT teacher head0.672
Teacher spread0.359 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicCancer-related cognitive impairment studiesFrench-language works237,207