A Randomized Trial to Increase Physical Activity in Breast Cancer Survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Interventions to increase physical activity among breast cancer survivors are needed to improve health and quality of life and possibly to reduce the risk of disease recurrence and early mortality. Therefore, we report the feasibility and preliminary outcomes of a pilot randomized trial designed to increase physical activity in sedentary breast cancer survivors receiving hormone therapy. METHODS: Forty-one sedentary women on estrogen receptor modulators or aromatase inhibitors for stage I, II, or IIIA breast cancer were randomly assigned to receive a 12-wk multidisciplinary physical activity behavior change intervention or usual care. RESULTS: Recruitment was 34%, intervention adherence was 99%, and complete follow-up data were obtained on 93%. Most participants (93%) were white with mean age of 53 +/- 9 yr. Differences favoring the intervention group were noted for accelerometer physical activity counts (mean difference = 72,103; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 25,383-119,000; effect size (d) = 1.02; P = 0.004), aerobic fitness (mean difference = 2.9; 95% CI = -0.1 to 5.8; d = 0.64; P = 0.058), back/leg muscle strength (mean difference = 12.3; 95% CI = 0.4-15.9; d = 0.81; P = 0.017), waist-to-hip ratio (mean difference = -0.05; 95% CI = -0.01 to -0.08; d = -0.77; P = 0.018), and social well-being (mean difference = 2.0; 95% CI = 0.3-3.8; d = 0.76; P = 0.03). However, the intervention group also reported a greater increase in joint stiffness (mean difference = 1.1; 95% CI = 0.1-2.2; d = 0.70; P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: A behavior change intervention for breast cancer survivors based on the social cognitive theory is feasible and results in potentially meaningful improvements in physical activity and selected health outcomes. Confirmation in a larger study 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".