A Comparison of Physical Activity of Posttreatment Breast Cancer Survivors and Noncancer Controls
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors obtained data from 335 breast cancer survivors and 6,880 noncancer controls. They proposed (1) to determine whether, after treatment, the survivors were meeting the Center for Disease Control and Prevention/American College of Sports Medicine recommendations for physical activity and were similar to the controls in physical activity and (2) to compare the modes of activity of the 2 groups in frequency, min/session, and sessions/wk. Adjusted logistic regression analyses revealed that the breast cancer survivors engaged in as much moderate, vigorous, and combined physical activity as the noncancer controls did. However, chi-square analyses showed that survivors engaged in more yard work than the controls did, whereas independent-sample t tests showed that the frequency and the total min/wk of stretching were significantly higher in breast cancer survivors compared with noncancer controls. Findings from the study suggest that breast cancer survivors engage in as much physical activity as controls do, but that the groups differ in specific activities.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it