Exercise in Cancer Survivors: An Overview of Research
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
PURPOSE: To provide an overview of research that has examined exercise in cancer survivors including recently completed trials at the University of Alberta. METHODS: A search of published studies using electronic data bases and previous review articles. The review is divided into breast and nonbreast cancers, during and after treatment, and trials from the University of Alberta. RESULTS: Forty-seven published studies were located and summarized plus four trials from the University of Alberta. Almost all studies showed beneficial effects of exercise in breast and nonbreast cancer groups alike as well as during and after cancer treatment. CONCLUSION: Preliminary research suggests that exercise may be an effective intervention for enhancing quality of life (QOL) in cancer survivors. The effects of exercise on biomarkers, cancer recurrence, other diseases, and overall survival are unknown. Future research is needed to extend our knowledge beyond breast cancer survivors, conduct second generation studies in breast cancer survivors, examine mechanisms for changes in QOL, compare exercise with other QOL interventions, and examine biomarkers, cancer recurrence, and survival.
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 | 0.013 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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