Associations Between Exercise, Quality of Life, and Fatigue in Colorectal Cancer Survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study was designed to examine quality of life and fatigue in colorectal cancer survivors meeting and not meeting public health exercise guidelines. METHODS: A Canadian provincial cancer registry identified colorectal cancer survivors who were mailed a questionnaire that assessed self-reported exercise, quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Colorectal), fatigue, medical, and demographic variables. RESULTS: Completed questionnaires were received from 413 (61.3 percent) eligible colorectal cancer survivors. Only 25.9 percent of colorectal cancer survivors reported meeting exercise guidelines. Colorectal cancer survivors meeting public health exercise guidelines reported clinically and significantly better quality of life (mean difference, 6; 95 percent confidence interval, 2.3-9.8; P = 0.002) and fatigue (mean difference = 5.2; 95 percent confidence interval, 2.9-7.5; P < 0.001). Differences remained after adjusting for medical and demographic factors. Cancer site (i.e., colon vs. rectal) was the only variable to moderate this association (P < 0.05 for interaction). CONCLUSIONS: Colorectal cancer survivors meeting public health exercise guidelines reported significantly and meaningfully better quality of life and fatigue scores than colorectal cancer survivors who did not meet guidelines. Prospective observational studies and randomized, controlled trials are needed to further assess the causal nature of these relationships.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".