Cancer Rehabilitation: Recommendations for Integrating Exercise Programming in the Clinical Practice Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical exercise training has been shown to be an effective component of comprehensive rehabilitation for some cancer patients and survivors. The purpose of this paper is to review the potential role of exercise training in the clinical setting and examine methods to deliver these services in the clinical setting. Noting the limited direct research on implementation of clinical exercise programs in the cancer setting, we review the literature and propose guidelines for: 1) goals of the prescribed physical activity or exercise program; 2) medical and pre-exercise evaluations; 3) recommendations for exercise programming; 4) safety considerations; 5) barriers to physical activity and exercise training in cancer patients; 6) self-directed and community based exercise programs; and 7) the role of medical and exercise professionals. Keywords: chemotherapeutic agents, cardiac disease, exercise trials, Muscular strength, Cancer survivors
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.055 | 0.112 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.006 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".