Prognostic Value of Cognitive Impairment in Patients With Pancreatic Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Cognitive impairment is increasingly recognized as having a significant influence on cancer prognosis; however, its relevance in pancreatic cancer remains underexplored. This study aims to evaluate the prevalence of cognitive impairment in patients with pancreatic cancer and examine its association with overall survival (OS). METHODS: In this prospective study, 516 patients with newly diagnosed pancreatic cancer were enrolled. Baseline cognitive function was assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, with cognitive impairment defined as a Montreal Cognitive Assessment score <24. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox proportional hazards models were used to examine the prognostic significance of cognitive impairment, adjusting for demographic and clinical covariates. RESULTS: The study cohort had a mean age of 64.30 years (SD=10.85), and 54.0% of the patients were diagnosed with stage IV pancreatic cancer. The median OS for the entire cohort was 17.18 months (95% CI=14.48-19.88). Cognitive impairment was observed in 53.5% of patients. Median OS was significantly shorter in patients with cognitive impairment than in those without (14.71 vs. 26.80 mo, log-rank p <.001). Cognitive impairment (hazard ratio=1.765, 95% CI=1.206-2.583, p =.003) and tumor stage (hazard ratio=2.582, 95% CI=1.853-3.598, p <.001) were independent prognostic factors for OS. CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive impairment is highly prevalent and independently associated with poorer OS in pancreatic cancer. These findings support routine cognitive assessments in pancreatic cancer management and highlight the need for further investigation into underlying mechanisms.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".