Body Mass Index, Physical Activity, and Health-Related Quality of Life in Cancer Survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the independent and interactive associations among body mass index (BMI), physical activity (PA), and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in breast, prostate, colorectal, bladder, uterine, and skin melanoma cancer survivors. METHODS: A total of 3241 cancer survivors completed a national cross-sectional survey that included PA questions and the RAND-36 Health Status Inventory. RESULTS: Compared with healthy-weight survivors, obese breast, prostate, bladder, and skin melanoma cancer survivors were significantly less likely to meet the PA guideline. Furthermore, healthy-weight and/or overweight breast, prostate, colorectal, uterine cancer, and skin melanoma survivors reported significantly better physical functioning compared with their obese counterparts, whereas overweight colorectal cancer survivors reported significantly better mental health compared with obese survivors. Finally, hierarchical linear regressions showed that none of the BMI × PA interactions was significant for the physical or mental component composite scores across the cancer types. CONCLUSIONS: The percentage of cancer survivors meeting the American Cancer Society's PA guideline seems to vary by weight status in breast, prostate, bladder, and skin melanoma cancer survivors. In addition, BMI and PA have independent associations with HRQoL; however, the interactive association of BMI and PA on HRQoL was negligible. Clarifying the relationship between BMI and PA across different cancer types will help identify potential target groups for future PA interventions that will help ameliorate the negative side effects of cancer and improve 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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".