Effect of exercise in reducing breast and chest-wall pain in patients with breast cancer: a pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Breast or chest-wall pain (BCP) is prevalent in 20%-50% of breast cancer survivors, and it affects quality of life (QOL). To determine the feasibility and potential efficacy of an exercise program to improve patient QOL and BCP, such a program was offered to breast cancer patients suffering from BCP. METHODS: The study enrolled 10 breast cancer patients with moderate-to-severe BCP at 3-6 months after completion of all adjuvant treatments. These patients participated in a 12-week comprehensive health improvement program (CHIP). Intensity was adjusted to reach 65%-85% of the patient's maximal heart rate. Before the CHIP and at 1 and 6 months after completion of the CHIP, QOL and pain were measured using questionnaires [European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life core and breast cancer modules (QLQ-C30, -BR23) and the McGill Pain Questionnaire short form] completed by the patients. Results were compared with those from case-matched control subjects from another study at McGill University. RESULTS: After the CHIP, patients reported significant and clinically important improvements in QOL and symptoms. At 1 and 6 months post-CHIP, patients in the study felt, on average, better in overall QOL than did historical control subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that patients who experience chronic bcp may benefit from an exercise program. A randomized controlled trial is warranted.
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) | 0.000 | 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".