Association between current lifestyle behaviors and health-related quality of life in breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer survivors
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to compare cancer survivors on three different lifestyle behaviors (i.e., physical activity, fruit and vegetable (F&V) consumption, and smoking) and examine the association between these lifestyle behaviors and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Breast (n = 123), colorectal (n = 86), and prostate (n = 107) cancer survivors completed a survey that included lifestyle behavior questions and the RAND-36 Health Status Inventory (HSI). Results showed that similar percentages of breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer survivors met the lifestyle behavior recommendations. Overall, 69.9 and 26.3% reported meeting the recommendations for physical activity and F&V consumption while 94.3% did not smoke. In addition, survivors who met the physical activity recommendation had significantly higher HRQOL than those who did not, however, meeting the F&V recommendation was not related to HRQOL. Nonetheless, survivors who met more than one lifestyle behavior recommendation had significantly higher HRQOL than those who only met one recommendation. Therefore, although it appears that F&V interventions are needed, it may be important to target more than one lifestyle behavior to obtain optimal HRQOL benefits. Importantly, results suggest that physical activity may be the key lifestyle behavior to include in multibehavioral interventions aimed at improving HRQOL.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 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 it