Physical Activity and Breast Cancer Survivorship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The completion of primary treatment for breast cancer has been referred to as a “teachable moment” for health behavior change, suggesting that women are receptive to receiving physical activity counseling. However, the majority of breast cancer survivors are not sufficiently active. Health care providers may play a pivotal role in increasing patients’ physical activity behavior, yet physician counseling for physical activity is not done regularly. One reason for this failure may relate to the limited guidelines put forward to assist health care providers in how best to optimize the benefits of physical activity among breast cancer survivors. To help provide guidelines for physical activity counseling with breast cancer survivors, the authors synthesized evidence-based recommendations based on a review of 30 intervention studies. The evidence on (1) type, (2) intensity, and (3) frequency and duration of physical activity for this population was examined. On the basis of the reviewed studies, the authors find that physical activity programs for breast cancer survivors should include aerobic training at least 3 times/wk for 30 minutes, resistance training 2 to 3 times/wk (6-12 exercises), and flexibility training 3 times/wk for 50 to 60 minutes to obtain health benefits. The provision of these recommendations may facilitate effective and consistent delivery of physical activity counseling to breast 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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".