Exercise stage of change, barriers, expectations, values and preferences among breast cancer patients during treatment: a pilot study
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
With increasing evidence supporting physical activity benefits during breast cancer treatment, addressing exercise adherence with consideration of the unique exercise barriers, outcome expectations and preferences of cancer patients is needed. Our pilot study aimed to determine the following during breast cancer treatment: (1) exercise barriers, outcome expectations/values and associations with exercise stage of change and (2) exercise preferences. A cross-sectional survey was administered to 23 breast cancer patients during treatment. Participants were primarily aged 50-60 years (52%), Caucasian (91%), with stage I (30%), II (44%) or III (26%) disease. A total of 48% were receiving chemotherapy. In total, 50% were in the pre-contemplation/contemplation stage of change, with 34% in action/maintenance. Common exercise adherence barriers (i.e. lack of priority, self-discipline, procrastination and fatigue) demonstrated statistically significant negative associations with exercise. Frequent outcome expectations included improving heart/lungs, reducing disease risk, building muscle strength and losing weight. Important outcomes included improving state of mind, reducing fatigue and avoiding injury. Outcome expectations (i.e. less depression, boredom and nausea) were positively associated with exercise. The majority preferred walking (100%), moderate-intensity (61%), home-based (78%) exercise. Among breast cancer patients during treatment, exercise adherence barriers are general and disease specific. Outcome expectations are physical benefits, with the most important outcomes being psychological or avoidance of risk (i.e. injury).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it