A randomized trial of exercise and quality of life in colorectal cancer survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We conducted a randomized controlled trial to determine the effects of a home-based exercise intervention on change in quality of life (QOL) in recently resected colorectal cancer survivors, most of whom were receiving adjuvant therapy. Participants were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to either an exercise (n = 69) or control (n = 33) group. The exercise group was asked to perform moderate intensity exercise 3-5 times per week for 20-30 min each time. The primary outcome was change in QOL as measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal (FACT-C) scale. Adherence in the exercise group was good (75.8%) but contamination in the control group was problematic (51.6%). Intention-to-treat analysis revealed no significant differences between groups for change in the FACT-C (mean difference, -1.3; 95% CI, -7.8 to 5.1; P = 0.679). In an 'on-treatment' ancillary analysis, we compared participants who decreased versus increased their cardiovascular fitness over the course of the intervention. This analysis revealed significant differences in favour of the increased fitness group for the FACT-C (mean difference, 6.5; 95% CI, 0.4-12.6; P = 0.038). These data suggest that increased cardiovascular fitness is associated with improvements in QOL in colorectal cancer survivors but better controlled trials are needed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".