Bibliographic record
Abstract
Results. Most cognitive function studies are cross-sectional and report impairment in 15--45% of patients. Longitudinal studies suggest some impairment is present prior to receiving chemotherapy. Our pilot study suggests that the High Sensitivity Cognitive Screen is unsuitable for longitudinal testing, and computerised testing is feasible. Our breast cancer study found no difference on classical and computerised cognitive batteries in patients who had received chemotherapy and those who had not, and no difference on objective testing between those who received chemotherapy and self reported impairment and those who did not. fMRI revealed greater brain activation with increased difficulty of a mental task in those who did not receive chemotherapy, with poorest activation in those who received chemotherapy and complained of cognitive impairment. Increased cytokine levels were associated with impairment on classical cognitive tests. The CRC study found that sim;30% of patients have cognitive impairment prior to receiving chemotherapy. There was a non-significant trend to greater objective and subjective impairment, fatigue, anxiety and depressive symptoms at 12 months in those who received chemotherapy. No association was found between objective cognitive impairment and fatigue, anxiety or depression although each was associated with self-reported cognitive impairment. Background. Evidence is emerging that some cancer survivors suffer cognitive impairment after chemotherapy; the cause is unknown. Conclusions. Cognitive impairment occurs in a subset of cancer survivors and is generally subtle. Most evidence suggests an association with chemotherapy although other factors associated with the diagnosis and treatment of cancer may contribute. Methods. Here I review the literature evaluating cognitive impairment in adult cancer survivors, discuss the methodological and statistical challenges for evaluating cognitive function and present three original studies: (1) a pilot study evaluating three screening instruments; (2) a study assessing cognitive function in women previously diagnosed with breast cancer, comparing differences in those who received chemotherapy and those who received local treatment only, and those who self-reported cognitive impairment and those who did not; (3) an interim analysis of a longitudinal cohort study in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients comparing cognitive function and fatigue in those who did and did not receive chemotherapy, and exploring putative 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".