MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Identification and prediction of physical activity trajectories in women treated for breast cancer

2014· article· en· W2008870133 on OpenAlexafffund
Jennifer Brunet, Steve Amireault, Michael Chaiton, Catherine M. Sabiston

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Epidemiology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsOntario Tobacco Research UnitUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerWorryLogistic regressionCohortPsychological interventionPhysical activityCancerDemographyInternal medicinePhysical therapyAnxietyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: In this study, we aimed to identify trajectories of physical activity in a cohort of women over a 1-year period after treatment for breast cancer. We also examined factors that could predict trajectory group membership. METHODS: We collected data from 199 women using questionnaires at baseline (mean = 3.46 months after treatment), and 3, 6, 9, and 12 months thereafter. RESULTS: Based on semiparametric group-based modeling, there were five trajectories: consistently inactive, decreasing levels, inactive with increasing levels, somewhat active, and consistently sufficiently active. Based on logistic regression analysis, women who reported higher levels of depressive symptoms and fatigue were less likely to remain consistently sufficiently active, and women who reported higher levels of cancer worry were more likely to remain consistently sufficiently active. Age, stage of cancer, time since treatment, number of treatment types received, and number of physical symptoms did not predict trajectory group membership. CONCLUSIONS: Women do not have uniform physical activity trajectories after treatment for breast cancer. Identification subgroups of women who do not remain consistently sufficiently active, and factors that predict these trajectories, can aid in the development of targeted behavior change 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.233
Threshold uncertainty score0.230

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.083
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of EpidemiologySame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207