Reviewing the Benefits of Physical Activity During Cancer Survivorship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasing physical activity is a possible strategy for the prevention and/or treatment of many physical and mental health conditions that are experienced among cancer survivors. Although engaging in physical activity is safe, feasible, and effective for cancer survivors, few are sufficiently active to obtain health benefits. This review summarizes findings from published research studies and review articles to highlight the benefits of physical activity for cancer survivors. For the purpose of this review, a cancer survivor is defined as an individual who has been diagnosed with cancer and who has completed all systemic or primary treatments. This review includes evidence from a wide range of sources to help provide a holistic summary of both quantitative and qualitative findings on the benefits of physical activity for cancer survivors. The benefits are presented within survival, biological/physiological, psychological, and social themes using a using a broad quality of life model. The evidence suggests physical activity is associated with reduced rates of mortality, improved immune function, improved health-related quality of life, decreased fatigue, improved fitness, maintenance of healthy weight and bone density, improved physical and psychological indicators of well-being, and that physical activity programs can foster social support and feelings of connectedness. This review establishes that physical activity may reduce the various adverse side effects associated with cancer treatments and improve cancer survivors’ physical, psychological and social quality of life facets. Encouraging physical activity is the first step in helping cancer survivors experience long-term health and well-being.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".