MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409954870 · doi:10.1007/s00520-025-09470-1

A novel ecological momentary assessment app for the investigation of daily cognitive functioning in breast cancer survivors: a feasibility study

2025· article· en· W4409954870 on OpenAlexaff
Annalee L. Cobden, Jake Burnett, Jacqueline B Saward, Alex Burmester, Mervyn Singh, Juan F. Domínguez D, Priscilla Gates, Jocelyn Lippey, Karen Caeyenberghs

Bibliographic record

VenueSupportive Care in Cancer · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer-related cognitive impairment studies
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
FundersDeakin University
KeywordsUsabilityCognitionBreast cancerClinical psychologyConstruct validityMedicinePsychologyCancerPsychometricsComputer sciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Breast cancer survivors often experience cancer-related cognitive impairment (CRCI), such as problems with memory and attention. However, typical neuropsychological test batteries are unable to capture the day-to-day variability of cognition and may be underestimating CRCI. The present study aims to assess the feasibility, usability, and validity of a novel ecological momentary assessment (EMA) app of cognition. METHODS: Nineteen breast cancer survivors 6-36-month post-chemotherapy and 28 healthy controls completed the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery. Subsequently, participants completed the EMA app (once a day, for 30 days) comprising four cognitive tasks assessing processing speed, working memory, inhibition, and attention. At the conclusion of the app, participants completed a usability questionnaire on which content analysis was performed. Feasibility was assessed against eight criteria, including accessibility, app compliance, and technical smoothness. Convergent construct validity was assessed using Spearman's correlation analyses between the NIH toolbox and the EMA app. RESULTS: Five of eight feasibility criteria were met, including accessibility, app motivation, participation rate, drop-out, and data collection. Additionally, our content analyses revealed four themes important to usability: self-development, altruism, engagement, and functionality. Majority of the EMA tasks were moderately positively correlated with the corresponding constructs of the NIH toolbox tasks (R's range 0.55-0.64), indicating better performance on the EMA app coincided with better performance on the NIH toolbox. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show the app was accessible, participants were motivated to complete sessions, and our tasks showed good construct validity. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Our novel EMA app can be used as a comprehensive cognitive measure in cancer survivors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.340 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSupportive Care in CancerSame topicCancer-related cognitive impairment studiesFrench-language works237,207