Cognitive impairment in young adults after cancer treatment: A descriptive correlational study on levels and associations with disease-related, psychological, and lifestyle factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Young adults report challenges concerning cancer-related cognitive impairment (CRCI). This study aimed to: (1) describe cognition in young adults post-cancer treatment using self-report and performance-based measures, and (2) examine associations between cognition and relevant disease-related, psychological, and lifestyle (physical activity; PA) factors.Methods Forty-six young adults (Mage = 31.4 ± 5.4 years; 91.3% female) completed web-based questionnaires and neuropsychological tests; data were analyzed via descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations.Results Most (60.9%) self-reported clinically meaningful CRCI and displayed poorer executive functioning and processing speed (but not working memory) than normative data. Disease-related factors, psychological factors, and PA had null-to-moderate (rs = −0.32–0.28), small-to-large (rs = −0.74–0.77), and trivial-to-moderate (rs = −0.16 – 0.36) correlations with cognition (respectively), with differences in magnitude between self-reported and objective cognition.Conclusion The observed correlations warrant further exploration in larger prospective studies, and trials should investigate causative mechanisms and specific PA parameters.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".