MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417433556 · doi:10.1136/bmjment-2025-301969

Brain fog with long covid and chemotherapy: systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4417433556 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jack Wilson, Kathy Liu, Emma Mittelman, Polen Bareke, Eli Shleifer, Robert Howard

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Mental Health · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUCLH Biomedical Research CentreMedical Research Council
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PandemicSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakCoronavirus Infections

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Question What are the cognitive, functional and affective characteristics of brain fog in individuals with long covid and following chemotherapy, and how are these features assessed across studies? Study selection and analysis In March 2024, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of peer-reviewed studies assessing cognition, function or mood in adults (≥18 years) with brain fog after COVID-19 or chemotherapy. PubMed, Embase and Web of Science were searched systematically according to eligibility criteria to March 2024, with an update in May 2025. Random-effects meta-analyses using the ‘dmetar’ package (V.0.0.9000) in R V.4.3.1 were performed for studies comparing individuals with and without brain fog. Bias was assessed using the National Institutes of Health Study Quality Assessment Tools. Findings Of 3077 records screened, 65 studies met inclusion criteria: 40 investigated brain fog in long covid and 25 in chemotherapy populations. Considerable variation in assessment tools was observed. Montreal Cognitive Assessment was the most common cognitive test in long covid studies; Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy—Cognitive Function was most used in chemotherapy studies. Nine long covid studies were eligible for meta-analysis. Compared with controls, individuals with brain fog had significantly lower cognitive performance (Hedge’s g=−0.63, 95% CI −1.15 to −0.12), higher fatigue (Hedge’s g=2.64, 95% CI 0.41 to 4.86) and more depressive symptoms (Hedge’s g=1.48, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.55). Heterogeneity was high (I 2 >70%). No chemotherapy studies were appropriate for meta-analysis, preventing direct comparison of brain fog features between long covid and chemotherapy groups. Conclusions Brain fog in long covid and chemotherapy populations is associated with cognitive complaints, fatigue and mood disturbance, though assessment methods differ widely. To improve comparability and clinical understanding, we propose adoption of consistent tools and definitions in future studies. This will be a crucial step in generating findings that can be meaningfully compared across populations. PROSPERO registration number CRD42024520549.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.609
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.395 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Mental HealthSame topicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19French-language works237,207