Cognitive performance in breast cancer survivors: a ten-year follow-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Cognitive impairment (CI) has been widely reported as a frequent non-fatal cancer outcome. 15% to 25% of breast cancer (BCa) patients may have CI; however long-term variations of cognitive performance during and after the cessation of the treatments remains unclear. The present study aims to describe the evolution of cognitive performance in BCa survivors that are still in follow-up at breast cancer clinic, 10 years after diagnosis. Methods 506 women with BCa admitted to the Portuguese Institute of Oncology, Porto, in 2012, were evaluated with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) before any treatment, after one, three, five, and ten years. Patients with a MoCA score ≤1.5 standard deviation below the mean of age- and education-specific norms were considered to have probable cognitive impairment (PCI). The 10-year follow up started in October 2022, and is still in progress (as of March, 118 were evaluated). All women that are still being followed at IPO-Porto for consultations and treatments were evaluated with MoCA assessment. Results PCI prevalence at the 10 years was 43.0% (95%Confidence Interval: 34.1%-52.7%). Several pathways for cognitive performance were identified throughout the 10-year follow-up: 58 women (49.2%) never had PCI at baseline assessment or during follow-up; 19 women (16.1%) had PCI at baseline, from whom 5 (4.2%) had PCI in all evaluations, 2 (1.7%) did not have PCI in any follow up evaluation, 2 (1.7%) had PCI during follow up, but not at 10 years and 3 (2.5%) had PCI again only at the 10-year follow-up; 5 women (4.2%) did not have PCI at baseline but had PCI at least once during follow-up but not at 10 years, and 24.6% had PCI for the first time at 10 years. Conclusions The results show a high prevalence of PCI 10 years after diagnosis with a significant part being new cases. These results highlight the need for including regular assessments of cognitive performance as a part of the clinical follow-up of BCa survivors. Key messages • There is a high prevalence of cognitive deficits in breast cancer suvivors 10 years after diagnosis. • Including cognitive evaluations of breast cancer survivors during clinical follow up are recommended.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".