MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011623694 · doi:10.1002/cncr.23379

Moderators of the effects of exercise training in breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy

2008· article· en· W2011623694 on OpenAlexaff
Kerry S. Courneya, Donald C. McKenzie, John R. Mackey, Karen A. Gelmon, Robert D. Reid, Christine M. Friedenreich, Aliya B. Ladha, Caroline Proulx, Jeffrey K. Vallance, Kirstin N. Lane, Yutaka Yasui, Roanne Segal

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaOttawa HospitalBC Cancer AgencyUniversity of British ColumbiaAlberta Cancer FoundationUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAerobic exerciseRegimenBreast cancerInternal medicineQuality of life (healthcare)Confidence intervalPhysical therapyLean body massChemotherapyChemotherapy regimenCancerOncologyBody weight

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Exercise training improves supportive care outcomes in patients with breast cancer who are receiving adjuvant therapy, but the responses are heterogeneous. In this study, the authors examined personal and clinical factors that may predict exercise training responses. METHODS: Breast cancer patients who were initiating adjuvant chemotherapy (N=242) were assigned randomly to receive usual care (UC) (n=82), resistance exercise training (RET) (n=82), or aerobic exercise training (AET) (n=78) for the duration of chemotherapy. Endpoints were quality of life (QoL), aerobic fitness, muscular strength, lean body mass, and body fat. Moderators were patient preference for group assignment, marital status, age, disease stage, and chemotherapy regimen. RESULTS: Adjusted linear mixed-model analyses demonstrated that patient preference moderated QoL response (P= .005). Patients who preferred RET improved QoL when they were assigned to receive RET compared with UC (mean difference, 16.5; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 4.3-28.7; P= .008) or AET (mean difference, 11; 95% CI, -1.1-23.4; P= .076). Patients who had no preference had improved QoL when they were assigned to receive AET compared with RET (mean difference, 23; 95% CI, 4.9-41; P= .014). Marital status also moderated QoL response (P= .026), age moderated aerobic fitness response (P= .029), chemotherapy regimen moderated strength gain (P= .009), and disease stage moderated both lean body mass gain (P< .001) and fat loss (P= .059). Unmarried, younger patients who were receiving nontaxane-based therapies and had more advanced disease stage experienced better outcomes. The findings were not explained by differences in adherence. CONCLUSIONS: Patient preference, demographic variables, and medical variables moderated the effects of exercise training in breast cancer patients who were receiving chemotherapy. If replicated, these results may inform clinical practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations107
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancerSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207