Baseline Neurocognitive Functioning Among Children Treated for Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL): Dana Farber Cancer Institute ALL Consortium Study 16‐001
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study describes neurocognitive functioning during the first month of induction chemotherapy for childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and associations with age, sex, risk of relapse, maternal education, household material hardship (HMH), and oxidative stress. METHODS: Patients treated on protocol 16-001 (NCT03020030) across eight North American sites (2017-2022) consented for optional testing using Cogstate at six timepoints throughout treatment. The baseline data presented were collected within the first month after diagnosis. RESULTS: Among 406 eligible patients, 330 (81%) consented (53% males, mean age = 8.8 years, SD = 4.7). Over 63% of participants performed within normal limits for their age range. Additionally, no relationship was observed at baseline between neurocognition and maternal education, HMH, or oxidative stress. In contrast, a linear relationship was observed between older age and weaker psychomotor speed (p < 0.0001), attention (p < 0.0001), and working memory (p = 0.019). Males also demonstrated faster psychomotor speed (p = 0.0027), while females demonstrated stronger visual learning (p = 0.011). Furthermore, having a higher risk of relapse was associated with slower psychomotor speed (p = 0.006) and weaker attention (p = 0.033). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that most ALL patients in this study who were assessed at baseline did not display cognitive impairments, except for a small subset of participants who were below age expectations across domains. These baseline findings also identify subgroups based upon age, sex, and ALL risk classification that begin medical treatment with neurocognitive delays, warranting monitoring to elucidate whether exposure to therapy further impacts these domains. Additionally, the lack of impact on neurocognitive functioning at baseline of maternal education, HMH, and/or oxidative stress enables subsequent assessments to effectively identify the potential emergence of deficits as a result of exposure to medical treatment.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".