Subgroup effects in a randomised trial of different types and doses of exercise during breast cancer chemotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Combined Aerobic and Resistance Exercise Trial tested different types and doses of exercise in breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. Here, we explore potential moderators of the exercise training responses. METHODS: Breast cancer patients initiating chemotherapy (N=301) were randomly assigned to three times a week, supervised exercise of a standard dose of 25-30 min of aerobic exercise, a higher dose of 50-60 min of aerobic exercise, or a higher dose of 50-60 min of combined aerobic and resistance exercise. Outcomes were patient-reported symptoms and health-related fitness. Moderators were baseline demographic, exercise/fitness, and cancer variables. RESULTS: Body mass index moderated the effects of the exercise interventions on bodily pain (P for interaction=0.038), endocrine symptoms (P for interaction=0.029), taxane/neuropathy symptoms (P for interaction=0.013), aerobic fitness (P for interaction=0.041), muscular strength (P for interaction=0.007), and fat mass (P for interaction=0.005). In general, healthy weight patients responded better to the higher-dose exercise interventions than overweight/obese patients. Menopausal status, age, and baseline fitness moderated the effects on patient-reported symptoms. Premenopausal, younger, and fitter patients achieved greater benefits from the higher-dose exercise interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Healthy weight, fitter, and premenopausal/younger breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy are more likely to benefit from higher-dose exercise interventions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".