Prospective Evaluation of a 12-Week Walking Exercise Program and Its Effect on Fatigue in Prostate Cancer Patients Undergoing Radical External Beam Radiotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate tolerability and compliance to a walking exercise program and its effect on fatigue during and after radical external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) for prostate cancer. METHODS: A total of 50 subjects with prostate cancer undergoing EBRT over 6 to 8 weeks were prospectively accrued to an exercise intervention group, matched for age and clinical characteristics to 30 subjects in a historical control group who underwent EBRT with no specific exercise intervention. Starting 1 week before EBRT, exercise participants performed moderate-intensity walking targeting 60% to 70% age-predicted maximum heart rate, at least 20 min/d, 3 d/wk over 12 weeks. The Brief Fatigue Inventory was administered at baseline, mid-EBRT (week 3-4), end-EBRT (week 6-8), and 6 months post-EBRT. RESULTS: Of 50, 42 (84%) of exercise participants completed the walking program. There were no cardiovascular complications, musculoskeletal injuries, or other adverse events. A total of 89% subjects reported "Good-Excellent" satisfaction during and up to 6 months post-EBRT. Fatigue in control subjects escalated from baseline to end-EBRT, remaining high at 6 months post-EBRT (P[r] = 0.03). In contrast, mean total fatigue scores in exercise subjects were stable from baseline up to 6 months post-EBRT (P = 0.52). Trends for higher fatigue interference with quality of life were observed in the control group as compared with the exercise group. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-intensity walking exercise during radical EBRT is safe and feasible. The high convenience and satisfaction ratings, in conjunction with the observed fatigue trends, indicate that this activity has the potential to attenuate fatigue and improve quality of life for patients with localized prostate cancer undergoing curative therapy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".