MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract P1-06-02: Remote functional cognitive rehabilitation in Breast Cancer Patients, a single center retrospective study

2025· article· en· W4411287723 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Einav Nili Gal‐Yam, Sharon Harel, Rachel Kizony, Beatrice Shaham, Galia Barkai

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Cancer Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer-related cognitive impairment studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCenter (category theory)Breast cancerRetrospective cohort studyCognitionCancerRehabilitationSingle CenterOncologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: The number of breast cancer survivors is increasing substantially. About 15-50% of them cope with cognitive and executive functions difficulties that are related to decreased daily participation in meaningful activities and quality of life. Initial results point to the feasibility and efficacy of rehabilitation programs which focus on enhancing self-management abilities and executive functions, aiming to improve breast cancer survivors’ participation in meaningful activities. Nevertheless, programs which are delivered remotely to improve accessibility to care are scarce. We report the results of a remote functional-cognitive occupational therapy rehabilitation in a single center. Methods: Twenty-eight breast cancer patients were treated upon referral from their treating oncologists. Baseline evaluations were conducted in the clinic utilizing Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA) and Trail Making Test (TMT-A and TMT-B). Personal treatment goals (meaningful activities, e.g: "organize a weekly schedule" ) were chosen and rated by each patient for perceived performance and satisfaction on a scale of 1(low) to 10(high) before and after the intervention, with the Canadian Occupational Performance Measurement (COPM). Improvement of two points or more in the COPM is considered as clinical meaningful. The intervention included 8-12 sessions using videoconferencing. The first session aimed at promoting knowledge on the effects of cancer and its treatment on functional cognition and encouraging self-efficacy. The functional cognitive treatment was comprised of bottom-up sessions which utilized digital worksheets and gamified activities to improve cognitive skills, such as memory and executive functions. Additionally, top-down sessions focused on meta-cognitive strategies to enhance self-management for coping with daily life challenges, identified in the COPM. Additionally, self-practice exercises were provided to the patients. Results: Between12/2021 to 01/2024, 28 breast cancer patients underwent the intervention and were included in this analysis. Twenty-six were breast cancer survivors on active follow-up and 2 were metastatic breast cancer patients who were in remission. 19/28 (68%) patients previously underwent chemotherapy treatment and 17/28 (60%) patients were on endocrine treatment. Mean age was 50.4±11.2 (range 34-75). Twenty five patients (90%) completed at least 8 remote sessions. Mean MOCA score at baseline was 27.5±1.9, indicating intact general cognition. Baseline mean TMT scores were 39.5±12.6 seconds for TMT-A (20 (71%) below 50 percentile) and 83.5±39.6 seconds (14 (50%) below 50 percentile) for TMT-B. These results reflect a decrease in visual attention and executive functioning respectively. Mean COPM scores post intervention were significantly higher compared to the scores pre intervention for both perceived performance (pre = 4.2±1.6; post=7.0±1.2; p<.001) and satisfaction (pre = 3.0±1.8; post=6.7±1.8; p<.001). Out of 28 patients 21(75%) reported improvement in at least 2 or more points in performance and satisfaction of 2 activities. Conclusions: Remote functional cognitive rehabilitation is feasible and beneficial in breast cancer patients who report cognitive impairment following medical therapy and should be integrated into the standard care. Our study is limited by its retrospective nature and short term follow up. We are now conducting a prospective randomized controlled trial with extended evaluations and a longer follow up. Citation Format: Einav Nili Gal-Yam, Sharon Harel, Rachel Kizony, Maya Ben-Yakov, Beatrice Shaham, Galia Barkai. Remote functional cognitive rehabilitation in Breast Cancer Patients, a single center retrospective study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2024; 2024 Dec 10-13; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2025;31(12 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-06-02.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.382 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Cancer ResearchSame topicCancer-related cognitive impairment studiesFrench-language works237,207