The mechanisms responsible for exercise intolerance in early-stage breast cancer: What role does chemotherapy play?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this narrative review of the literature, we discuss the influence of chemotherapy treatment on peak aerobic power (VO2peak) for women with breast cancer and the mechanisms for exercise intolerance. In specific, we examine the central, peripheral, and oxygen transport mechanisms responsible for exercise intolerance in women living with breast cancer. Our findings indicate that reduced ventricular contractility, reduced left ventricular (LV) compliance, and increased afterload are (in part) responsible for exercise intolerance secondary to chemotherapy treatment. It appears that changes in central haemodynamics and morphology often occur preceding clinical diagnosis of cardiotoxicity (LV ejection fraction <55%), which explain the attenuated exercise tolerance for this population. Patients with breast cancer are unable to make use of the Frank–Starling mechanism to increase stroke volume in response to an increase in end-diastolic volume. They may be able to increase preload during exercise conditions; however, reduced LV filling mechanics (in part due to an increase in pericardial restraint) and decreased contractile reserve may ultimately contribute to a reduced exercise tolerance for women with breast cancer. Recent evidence indicates that peripheral maladaptations and alterations in haemoglobin concentration are additional mechanisms that may limit VO2peak and exercise tolerance in patients with breast 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".