MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W12860375 · doi:10.1123/japa.21.4.455

A Randomized Trial of Aerobic versus Resistance Exercise in Prostate Cancer Survivors

2013· article· en· W12860375 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Santa Mina, Shabbir M.H. Alibhai, Andrew Matthew, Crissa L. Guglietti, Meysam Pirbaglou, John Trachtenberg, Paul Ritvo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aging and Physical Activity · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph-Humber
FundersPrincess Margaret Hospital Foundation
KeywordsMedicineAerobic exerciseProstate cancerPsychosocialQuality of life (healthcare)Androgen deprivation therapyPhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialResistance trainingPhysical fitnessCancerInternal medicineNursingPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer (PCa) has side effects that significantly impair health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Exercise ameliorates many side effects of ADT, but different modalities, particularly in the home-based setting, have not been well studied. In this study the authors randomly assigned 66 PCa survivors receiving ADT to 6 mo of home-based aerobic or resistance training. Psychosocial well-being and physical fitness were measured at baseline, 3 and 6 mo, and then 6 mo postintervention. Intention-to-treat analyses showed that fatigue and HRQOL were not significantly different between groups; however, in a per-protocol analysis the resistance-exercise training group demonstrated clinically significant improvements in HRQOL. Differential within-group effects on physical fitness were also observed at various time points. At all time points, the aerobic-training group engaged in significantly more physical activity than the resistance-training group, a finding that should be further examined given evidence-based guidelines for activity volume in cancer survivors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations74
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Aging and Physical ActivitySame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207