Exercise Training in Oncology: Systematic Review and Clinical Practice Recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The emergence of exercise therapy as an important adjunct therapy following a cancer diagnosis dramatically increases the need for oncology professionals to inform and advise cancer patients on this modality. To guide clinical practice and ensure optimal safety and efficacy, oncology-specific evidence-based practice recommendations are required. Methods: We conducted a systematic review to identify all studies examining the effect of an exercise training intervention that included an objective measurement of cardiorespiratory fitness in adults diagnosed with cancer. Studies were assessed according to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II criteria. Despite considerable heterogeneity, structured exercise interventions significantly improved a variety of measures of cardiorespiratory fitness, body composition, global quality of life, fatigue, and depression. Results: Based on this evidence, we provide clinical practice exercise recommendations for curative-intent cancer patients both during and following adjuvant therapy. Conclusion: This summary provides important guidance to oncology and other health professionals giving exercise advice to individuals with cancer.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".