Predictors of Adherence to Supervised Exercise in Lymphoma Patients Participating in a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exercise improves health in lymphoma patients but the determinants of adherence in this population are unknown. The purpose of this study is to examine predictors of exercise adherence in lymphoma patients. In a randomized trial, 60 lymphoma patients were assigned to the exercise group and asked to attend three supervised exercise sessions per week for 12 weeks. Baseline data were collected on demographic, medical, fitness, psychosocial, and motivational variables. Adherence was assessed by objective attendance. Adherence was 77.8% and was significantly predicted by age (beta = 0.29; p = 0.016) and past exercise (beta = 0.27; p = 0.024); and borderline significantly predicted by previous treatments (beta = 0.22; p = 0.053), body mass index (beta = -0.21; p = 0.076), and smoking (beta = -0.19; p = 0.092). Poorer exercise adherence was experienced by lymphoma patients under age 40, insufficiently active at baseline, previously treated with radiation therapy, overweight or obese, and smokers. Findings may facilitate the development of targeted interventions to improve exercise adherence in this understudied patient 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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".