Barriers to Supervised Exercise Training in a Randomized Controlled Trial of Breast Cancer Patients Receiving Chemotherapy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Exercise adherence is a challenge for breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy but few studies have identified the key barriers. PURPOSE: In this paper, we report the barriers to supervised exercise in breast cancer patients participating in a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Breast cancer patients initiating adjuvant chemotherapy (N = 242) were randomly assigned to usual care (n = 82) or supervised resistance (n = 82) or aerobic (n = 78) exercise. Participants randomized to the two exercise groups (n = 160) were asked to provide a reason for each missed exercise session. RESULTS: The two exercise groups attended 70.2% (5,495/7,829) of their supervised exercise sessions and provided a reason for missing 89.5% (2,090/2,334) of their unattended sessions. The 2,090 reasons represented 36 different barriers. Feeling sick (12%), fatigue (11%), loss of interest (9%), vacation (7%), and nausea/vomiting (5%) accounted for the most missed exercise sessions. Disease/treatment-related barriers (19 of the 36 barriers) accounted for 53% (1,102/2,090) of all missed exercise sessions. Demographic and medical variables did not predict the types of exercise barriers reported. CONCLUSIONS: Barriers to supervised exercise in breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy are varied but over half can be directly attributed to the disease and its treatments. Behavioral support programs need to focus on strategies to maintain exercise in the face of difficult treatment side effects.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it