MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964830393 · doi:10.1186/1471-2407-10-531

Rationale and design of the Exercise Intensity Trial (EXCITE): A randomized trial comparing the effects of moderate versus moderate to high-intensity aerobic training in women with operable breast cancer

2010· article· en· W1964830393 on OpenAlexaff
Lee W. Jones, Pamela S. Douglas, Neil D. Eves, P. Kelly Marcom, William E. Kraus, James E. Herndon, Brant A. Inman, Jason D. Allen, Jeffrey Peppercorn

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Cancer · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusKelowna General HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineAerobic exerciseRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyClinical endpointBreast cancerPsychological interventionVO2 maxClinical trialCancerInternal medicineHeart rateBlood pressureNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Exercise Intensity Trial (EXcITe) is a randomized trial to compare the efficacy of supervised moderate-intensity aerobic training to moderate to high-intensity aerobic training, relative to attention control, on aerobic capacity, physiologic mechanisms, patient-reported outcomes, and biomarkers in women with operable breast cancer following the completion of definitive adjuvant therapy. METHODS/DESIGN: Using a single-center, randomized design, 174 postmenopausal women (58 patients/study arm) with histologically confirmed, operable breast cancer presenting to Duke University Medical Center (DUMC) will be enrolled in this trial following completion of primary therapy (including surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy). After baseline assessments, eligible participants will be randomized to one of two supervised aerobic training interventions (moderate-intensity or moderate/high-intensity aerobic training) or an attention-control group (progressive stretching). The aerobic training interventions will include 150 mins.wk⁻¹ of supervised treadmill walking per week at an intensity of 60%-70% (moderate-intensity) or 60% to 100% (moderate to high-intensity) of the individually determined peak oxygen consumption (VO₂peak) between 20-45 minutes/session for 16 weeks. The progressive stretching program will be consistent with the exercise interventions in terms of program length (16 weeks), social interaction (participants will receive one-on-one instruction), and duration (20-45 mins/session). The primary study endpoint is VO₂peak, as measured by an incremental cardiopulmonary exercise test. Secondary endpoints include physiologic determinants that govern VO₂peak, patient-reported outcomes, and biomarkers associated with breast cancer recurrence/mortality. All endpoints will be assessed at baseline and after the intervention (16 weeks). DISCUSSION: EXCITE is designed to investigate the intensity of aerobic training required to induce optimal improvements in VO₂peak and other pertinent outcomes in women who have completed definitive adjuvant therapy for operable breast cancer. Overall, this trial will inform and refine exercise guidelines to optimize recovery in breast and other cancer survivors following the completion of primary cytotoxic therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01186367.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations45
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC CancerSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207