Associations Between Physical Activity and Quality of Life in a Population-Based Sample of Kidney Cancer Survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physical activity (PA) improves quality of life (QoL) in several cancer survivor groups, but no study to date has focused on kidney cancer survivors (KCS). The purpose of this study was to estimate the prevalence of PA in KCS and determine any associations with QoL. METHODS: All 1,985 KCS diagnosed between 1996 and 2010 identified through a Canadian provincial Registry were mailed a survey that consisted of the Godin Leisure Time Exercise Questionnaire and several Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy QoL scales. Standard demographic and medical variables were also reported. RESULTS: Completed surveys were received from 703 (43%) of the 1,654 KCS that received the survey. Over half (56.3%) were completely sedentary (CS), 17.6% were insufficiently active, 11.9% were active within public health guidelines, and 14.1% exceeded public health guidelines. After adjustment for key demographic and medical covariates, analyses of covariance indicated a dose-response association between PA and most QoL outcomes from CS to within guidelines (WG) with no further improvements for exceeding guidelines. For the primary QoL outcome of patient-reported physical functioning, the overall difference between CS and WG was 8.6 points (95% CI: 4.2-12.9, P < 0.001) which exceeds the minimally important difference of 5.0 points for this scale. Few associations were moderated by demographic or medical variables. CONCLUSION: Over half of KCS are CS; however, even some PA may be beneficial for QoL. IMPACT: PA is a modifiable lifestyle factor that may have implications for QoL and disease outcomes in KCS.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".