Back

Utilizing Experimental Cognitive Assessments and Machine Learning to Advance Prediction of Cognitive Impairment in Breast Cancer Survivors: A Preliminary Study

Rudolph, M. D.; Muscatell, K. A.; Cohen, J. R.

2025-11-19 psychiatry and clinical psychology
10.1101/2025.11.14.25340009 medRxiv
Show abstract

Up to 80% of women breast cancer survivors (BCS), particularly those treated with chemotherapy, report persistent cognitive impairment. Several meta-analyses and empirical studies assessing cancer and chemotherapy-related cognitive impairment (CRCI) in BCS have reported cognitive deficits across many general domains of cognition. Moreover, discrepancies often arise between objectively measured and self-reported impairment, potentially due, in part, to the use of non-specific neuropsychological assessments. Cognitive impairments faced by BCS may only be experienced by a portion of individuals due to the interaction of several contributing factors (e.g., age, fatigue, stress), although this possibility has not been assessed systematically. This study measured cognitive performance using multiple modalities: 1) self-report measures, 2) traditional neuropsychological assessments, and 3) experimental cognitive paradigms. Using machine learning, we generated models to distinguish BCS from healthy aging individuals without breast cancer, and to assess the relative predictive value of these three assessment modalities. We found that self-report measures of fatigue, distractibility, and stress were able to successfully differentiate BCS from healthy control participants. Further, a model combining these self-report measures with measures from experimental cognitive paradigms and neuropsychological assessments increased predictive accuracy; performance on cognitive paradigms ranked more important for prediction than performance on neuropsychological assessments. Although preliminary, results highlight the predictive utility of combining measures from several modalities and indicate that several distinct factors may contribute to CRCI. As the nature of CRCI is complex, this approach may help identify the best combination of assessments and performance metrics to measure subtle cognitive impairments in women BCS.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Alzheimer's & Dementia: Diagnosis, Assessment & Disease Monitoring
38 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
23.1%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 20%
9.4%
3
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 9%
8.6%
4
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
67 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
6.5%
5
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.0%
50% of probability mass above
6
Journal of Alzheimer's Disease
43 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.3%
7
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 13%
2.2%
8
Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
52 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.9%
9
Brain and Behavior
37 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.8%
10
Alzheimer's & Dementia: Translational Research & Clinical Interventions
16 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
11
NeuroImage
813 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.7%
12
Frontiers in Psychiatry
83 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
13
Translational Psychiatry
219 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
14
Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease
39 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.4%
15
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
16
Healthcare
16 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
17
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
18
Communications Psychology
20 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
19
GeroScience
97 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
20
Aging
69 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
21
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
22
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
23
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
24
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
25
Bioengineering
24 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
26
The Journals of Gerontology: Series A
25 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
27
Cognitive Neurodynamics
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
28
JAMIA Open
37 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
29
Neuroinformatics
40 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
30
NeuroImage: Clinical
132 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%