Exercise and Nutrition Interventions in Advanced Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: In this systematic review, we sought to evaluate the effect of physical activity or nutrition interventions (or both) in adults with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (nsclc). METHODS: A systematic search for relevant clinical trials was conducted in 6 electronic databases, by hand searching, and by contacting key investigators. No limits were placed on study language. Information about recruitment rates, protocol adherence, patient-reported and clinical outcome measures, and study conclusions was extracted. Methodologic quality and risk of bias in each study was assessed using validated tools. MAIN RESULTS: Six papers detailing five studies involving 203 participants met the inclusion criteria. Two of the studies were single-cohort physical activity studies (54 participants), and three were controlled nutrition studies (149 participants). All were conducted in an outpatient setting. None of the included studies combined physical activity with nutrition interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review suggests that exercise and nutrition interventions are not harmful and may have beneficial effects on unintentional weight loss, physical strength, and functional performance in patients with advanced nsclc. However, the observed improvements must be interpreted with caution, because findings were not consistent across the included studies. Moreover, the included studies were small and at significant risk of bias. More research is required to ascertain the optimal physical activity and nutrition interventions in advanced inoperable nsclc. Specifically, the potential benefits of combining physical activity with nutrition counselling have yet to be adequately explored in this population.
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) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".