Group Exercise versus Personal Training for Prostate Cancer Patients: A Pilot Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Previous studies have demonstrated psychosocial and physical benefit from exercise for older men treated with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer (PCa). To date, different intervention delivery methods have not been assessed. This study compared the effect of group-based exercise (GBE) to personal training (PT) in men undergoing ADT for PCa. Methods: 13 participants (mean age = 68.2, SD = 7.2) were randomly assigned to GBE or PT for 8 weeks. Participants exercised for 60 minutes three times per week at a moderate-vigorous intensity. Results: 10 participants completed the intervention. At post-intervention, the PT group improved: fatigue, systolic BP, waist circumference, body fat percentage, and maximal leg strength; participants in the GBE group improved leg strength. At 8 weeks, maximal upper body strength in the PT group was greater than the GBE group. There were no adverse events associated with moderate-high intensity training in this population of older men. Conclusion: PT may be more efficacious than GBE in improving several physical fitness outcomes and fatigue in men with PCa who are androgen deprived. Due to the small sample size and attrition, these results require cautious interpretation and confirmation from adequately powered trials.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".