Effects of a clinician referral and exercise program for men who have completed active treatment for prostate cancer: A multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial (<scp>ENGAGE</scp>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of a clinician referral and exercise program in improving exercise levels and quality of life for men with prostate cancer. METHODS: This was a multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial in Melbourne, Australia comprising 15 clinicians: 8 clinicians were randomized to refer eligible participants (n = 54) to a 12-week exercise program comprising 2 supervised gym sessions and 1 home-based session per week, and 7 clinicians were randomized to follow usual care (n = 93). The primary outcome was self-reported physical activity; the secondary outcomes were quality of life, anxiety, and symptoms of depression. RESULTS: A significant intervention effect was observed for vigorous-intensity exercise (effect size: Cohen's d, 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.09-0.82; P = .010) but not for combined moderate and vigorous exercise levels (effect size: d, 0.08; 95% CI, -0.28 to 0.45; P = .48). Significant intervention effects were also observed for meeting exercise guidelines (≥150 min/wk; odds ratio, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.9-7.8; P = .002); positive intervention effects were observed in the intervention group for cognitive functioning (effect size: d, 0.34; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.70; P = .06) and depression symptoms (effect size: d, -0.35; 95% CI, -0.71 to 0.02; P = .06). Eighty percent of participants reported that the clinician's referral influenced their decision to participate in the exercise program. CONCLUSIONS: The clinician referral and 12-week exercise program significantly improved vigorous exercise levels and had a positive impact on mental health outcomes for men living with prostate cancer. Further research is needed to determine the sustainability of the exercise program and its generalizability to other cancer populations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".