Exercise therapy in the management of dyspnea in patients with cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Dyspnea is a frequent, debilitating, and understudied symptom in cancer associated with poor prognosis and reduced health-related quality of life. The purpose of this study is to review the incidence, pathophysiology, and mechanisms of dyspnea in patients diagnosed with cancer. We also discuss the existing evidence supporting the efficacy of exercise therapy to complement traditional approaches to reduce the impact of this devastating symptom in persons with cancer. RECENT FINDINGS: In other clinical populations presenting with dyspnea, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, exercise therapy is demonstrated to be an efficacious strategy. In contrast, relatively few studies to date have investigated the efficacy of exercise training as a therapeutic strategy to mitigate dyspnea in patients with cancer. SUMMARY: Although much more work is required, exercise therapy is a promising adjunct strategy to systematically reduce dyspnea in the oncology setting that may also provide additive efficacy when prescribed in combination with other adjunct therapies including pharmacologic interventions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".