The Effects of Light Therapy on Cognitive Function and Stress in Women With Breast Cancer Before Systemic Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cancer-related cognitive impairment (CRCI), for example, impairments in reaction time, processing speed, memory and executive function, may be associated with breast cancer (BC) surgery which can disrupt biological and psychological stress markers. Evidence suggests that light therapy may ameliorate cognitive impairment and stress. In this double-blind, randomized controlled trial, we investigated the efficacy of light therapy on mitigating the impact of BC surgery on CRCI in a national Icelandic cohort of women with BC. METHODS: Participants were randomly allocated to receive circadian-effective blue light (BL, N = 60) or circadian-ineffective dim light (DL, N = 57) for 4 weeks after surgery. The primary outcome was overall cognitive performance (assessed via global composite score), and secondary outcomes were specific cognitive domains, cognitive complaints, psychological (depressive symptoms, overall cancer-related stress and its symptoms: hyperarousal, avoidance, and intrusive thoughts) and biological (cortisol and α-amylase) stress markers. Linear regression and path analyses within structural equation modeling frameworks were conducted, adjusted for baseline cognitive performance, age, education, subsequent cancer treatment, cancer stage, and treatment credibility. RESULTS: No group differences were found in overall cognitive performance or in specific cognitive domains, except for a non-significant trend for faster reaction times in the BL group (p < 0.11). Additionally, the BL group reported significantly fewer cognitive complaints compared with the DL group (p < 0.05), as well as a non-significant trend for less intrusive thoughts (p < 0.11). No group differences were observed in the biological stress markers. CONCLUSION: Overall, these findings suggest that light therapy may help mitigate the adverse effects associated with BC surgery on CRCI and intrusive thoughts, although further research is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04418856.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".