Differences in quality of life between non‐Hodgkin's lymphoma survivors meeting and not meeting public health exercise guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary purpose of this study was to examine differences in quality of life (QoL) between non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) survivors meeting and not meeting public health exercise guidelines. A secondary purpose was to examine exercise behavior changes across three distinct cancer-related time periods (i.e. prediagnosis, on treatment and off treatment). Using a retrospective survey design, 438 NHL survivors residing in Alberta, Canada completed a mailed questionnaire that assessed self-reported exercise prediagnosis, on treatment and off treatment, and current QoL. Descriptive analyses indicated that 33.8, 6.5 and 23.7% of NHL survivors met public health exercise guidelines during prediagnosis, on treatment, and off treatment time periods, respectively. Multivariate analyses of variance indicated that NHL survivors meeting public health exercise guidelines during postdiagnosis time periods had higher current QoL scores than NHL survivors not meeting guidelines. QoL difference scores between the two groups met proposed standards for clinically important differences. Multivariate analyses also indicated significant differences in exercise behavior across the three cancer-related time periods (all p's<0.01). These analyses were unchanged after statistically controlling for important medical and demographic variables. The results of this study provide evidence that NHL survivors meeting public health exercise guidelines on and off treatment reported higher current QoL than those survivors not meeting guidelines. These findings corroborate research examining exercise behavior in other cancer survivor groups and provide preliminary data to support a randomized controlled trial on exercise and QoL in this population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".