Discrepancy between subjective perception and objective cognitive performance in attention assessment within the winners project for cancer survivors. a case report
C. Gonzalez-Perez, E. Moran, N. Malpica, J. Alvarez-Linera, H. Melero, M. Alonso, M. Esteban, A. Perez-Martinez, E. Fernández-Jiménez

TL;DR
This case report highlights a mismatch between caregivers' subjective assessments and objective test results in measuring attention in pediatric cancer survivors.
Contribution
The study demonstrates the importance of using objective cognitive tests over subjective reports for accurate attention assessment in cancer survivors.
Findings
Objective tests showed improved attention after intervention, shifting from an ADHD-like to a slowed pattern.
Parent-reported assessments indicated worsened attention, while self-reports showed no significant change.
Subjective reports cannot replace objective tests in evaluating neurocognitive outcomes in cancer survivors.
Abstract
Paediatric cancer survivors have a risk for neuropsychological impairment due to the disease and the treatment received. These affections have been neglected in the follow-up of these patients. It is important to identify the most valid outcomes in the evaluation of neurocognitive sequelae in childhood cancer survivors. This work aims to compare the results obtained between subjective perception of caregivers and objective cognitive performance based on validated attention tests. In a randomized controlled and unblinded trial to demonstrate the benefit of video games on different neurocognitive areas in cancer survivors, we studied attention functioning before and after the intervention program. The attention deficit subscale from the Behavior Assessment System for Children 3rd edition (BASC-3), self- and parent-reported versions, and the Continuous Performance Test, 3rd edition (CPT…
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsCancer-related cognitive impairment studies
