Exercise Discussions During Cancer Treatment Consultations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Physical exercise has been shown to help cancer survivors cope with treatment side effects. The purpose of this study was to examine the role of the oncologist in promoting exercise in cancer survivors. DESCRIPTION OF STUDY: Cancer survivors who had recently completed treatment (N = 311) were mailed a self-administered questionnaire that assessed the following: whether exercise was discussed during any of their treatment consultations; whether they preferred that exercise be discussed during this time; their perceived oncologist approval for exercise; and the amount of exercise they performed during treatment. RESULTS: Descriptive statistics showed that 28.4% of cancer survivors reported that their oncologist initiated a discussion of exercise during their treatment consultation, that 13.9% said that they initiated a discussion, and that 57.8% said that exercise was not discussed. Survivors younger than 60 years of age were more likely to initiate a discussion of exercise than were older survivors. Survivors whose oncologist initiated a discussion of exercise also reported a stronger normative belief for exercise, performing more frequent exercise during treatment, and performing more total minutes of exercise during treatment. Most (82.2%) survivors preferred that the oncologist initiate the discussion of exercise. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: These findings indicate that most cancer survivors responding to this survey preferred that their oncologist initiate a discussion of exercise. Such a discussion appears to increase survivor exercise levels during treatment. If confirmed in a prospective, randomized, controlled trial, the implication is that an oncologist-initiated discussion of exercise during treatment consultations may be a cost-effective strategy for promoting exercise in 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 | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".