Resting Energy Expenditure and Body Mass Changes in Women During Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Weight gain is a commonly reported side effect of adjuvant chemotherapy. A change in resting energy expenditure during treatment has been a suggested mechanism for weight gain. We prospectively measured resting energy expenditure, weight change, and body composition (dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry) in 10 women undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. There was no change in resting energy expenditure across cycles of chemotherapy (P =.78) or from baseline to the end of treatment (1,189.68 +/- 80.27 vs 1,205.76 +/- 56.71 kcal/d; P =.74). Overall, participants did not gain weight across treatment. However, there was an overall trend toward weight gain (66.3 +/- 5.1 vs 68.2 +/- 5.0 kg; P =.09), and participants did show an increase in total fat mass (24.2 +/- 3.8 vs 26.5 +/- 3.2 kg; P =.04), whereas muscle mass remained the same. Although no change in resting energy expenditure was seen, the observed increase in total fat mass is consistent with a decrease in physical activity level commonly reported with adjuvant chemotherapy treatment of breast cancer, and these body composition changes may have important health implications for 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".