Exercise preferences among patients with head and neck cancer: Prevalence and associations with quality of life, symptom severity, depression, and rural residence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Our aim was to determine exercise preferences among patients with head and neck cancer and their associations with quality of life, symptom severity, depression, and rural residence. METHODS: This study involved a cross-sectional chart review and self-administered survey, with 90 outpatients with head and neck cancer (response rate = 83%). RESULTS: The majority were <65 years old (65%), male (78%), and white (96%) with stage > or = III (81%). Lack of preference was the most frequent option for counseling source (66%), counseling delivery (47%), and exercise variability (52%). Popular specific preferences included outdoors (49%), morning (47%), and alone (50%). Significant adjusted associations occurred for patients' interest with lower functional well-being, alone with higher functional well-being, and morning with higher total quality of life and emotional, social, and functional well-being. No significant associations occurred with symptoms, depression, or rural residence. CONCLUSION: Patients with head and neck cancer may be open to a variety of exercise options. Quality of life may influence interest and preference for exercising alone or in the morning.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".