Associations of objectively assessed physical activity and sedentary time with health‐related quality of life among colon cancer survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The primary purpose of this study was to determine associations of accelerometer-assessed moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity (MVPA) and sedentary time with health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and physical function and well-being in colon cancer survivors. METHODS: Colon cancer survivors (N = 178) from Alberta, Canada (n = 92) and Western Australia (n = 86) completed a mailed survey that assessed HRQoL (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal), physical function and well-being (Trial Outcome Index-Colorectal), and relevant covariates. MVPA and sedentary time were assessed using the Actigraph GT3X+ accelerometer (60-second epochs) via a 7-day monitoring protocol. Average daily MVPA and sedentary time was corrected for wear time and then examined as quartiles. RESULTS: Adjusting for relevant demographic, behavioral, and clinical covariates, a significant difference in HRQoL scores emerged between quartile 1 (Q1) and Q4 (M(diff) = 11.5, P = .038). For physical function and well-being, a significant difference emerged between Q1 and Q4 (M(diff) = 9.1, P = .009). For fatigue, a significant difference emerged between Q1 and Q4 (M(diff) = 7.1, P = .05). Significant differences were also observed for between Q1 and Q3 (M(diff) = 2.4, P = .041), and Q1 and Q4 (M(diff) = 3.5, P = .002) for colorectal cancer-specific symptoms. There were no statistically significant associations of sedentary time with HRQoL, physical function and well-being, fatigue, or colorectal cancer-specific symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Objectively measured MVPA, but not sedentary time, was associated with better HRQoL, physical function and well-being, and colorectal cancer-specific symptoms in colon cancer survivors. For MVPA, differences met or exceeded contemporary cutpoints for determining clinically important differences.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".