A Community-based Physical Activity Program for Adolescents With Cancer (Project TREK)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: As the number of pediatric survivors continues to grow, a greater emphasis is being placed on identifying long-term health risk/protecting behaviors. The primary purpose of this pilot study was to examine the feasibility of a theoretically-based physical activity (PA) intervention in adolescents with cancer. METHODS: A group PA intervention was administered to participants over 16 weeks. Program attendance/adherence, total PA, physical fitness, and quality of life (QOL) were assessed at 5 different intervals over the 1-year study duration. RESULTS: Over a period of 6 weeks, 11 adolescents responded to recruitment efforts. Ten ultimately enrolled and completed the 1-year study. Overall, the program was well received with attendance over the 16-week intervention averaging 81.5%. Although improvements in total PA, physical fitness, and QOL were noted across the intervention, follow-up data revealed that participants failed to maintain their postintervention PA levels at both the 3 and 12-month follow-up assessments. CONCLUSIONS: Adolescents with a history of cancer are undoubtedly susceptible to the same maladaptive health habits as are their healthy peers. Innovative interventions aimed at improving their adherence to positive behavioral interventions, such as PA are warranted. Although not without limitations, this study provides preliminary data in support of a university-sponsored PA intervention.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".