ArticleTranslational neuroscience2026
Limitations of standard memory assessments in breast cancer survivors.
Article in Translational neuroscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in women worldwide, and treatments like chemotherapy are often linked to post-treatment cognitive impairments, including memory deficits. Standardized episodic memory tests may fail to capture the nuanced, real-world aspects of memory, potentially underestimating impairments in cancer survivors. This study seeks to investigate the impact of cancer treatment on episodic memory in breast cancer survivors (BCS) by comparing standard cognitive measures with ecologically valid measures of naturalistic memory, which may capture the subtle memory impairments. Methods: BCS at least 6 months post-treatment (n=45) and non-cancer control (NC; n=43), aged 30 to 65, completed two cognitive tasks to assess episodic memory (Taler Stories and Verbal Paired Associates, VPA) and two questionnaires to assess perceived cognitive workload (National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index) and perceived episodic and semantic memory abilities (Survey of Autobiographical Memory). Results: BCS recalled fewer verbatim and gist details for the Taler Stories than NC, with impairments in gist memory persisting during delayed recall. However, no memory deficits were evident on the VPA task in BCS compared to NC. BCS reported greater cognitive effort during the story recall tasks, but no group differences emerged for the VPA task. BCS also self-reported heightened subjective difficulties with episodic and semantic memory compared to NC, which was consistent with poorer performance on the Taler Stories. Conclusions: Impaired performance on complex naturalistic memory, despite similar VPA memory task performance, suggests that standard assessments may not fully capture everyday memory challenges faced by BCS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.