Feasibility of a Pedometer-Based Walking Program for Survivors of Breast and Head and Neck Cancer Undergoing Radiation Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This pilot study assessed the feasibility and acceptability of a pedometer-based walking program for people with breast cancer and head and neck cancer (HNC) undergoing radiation therapy treatment. METHODS: Participants were given a pedometer and prescribed a home-based walking program that included an individualized weekly step-count goal during the 3- to 5-week course of radiation therapy. Feasibility was determined by calculating recruitment rate, completion rate, and rate of adherence. Secondary outcomes included 6-minute walk test (6MWT) distance, step count, physical activity level, and psychological outcomes of depression, happiness, self-esteem, and sleep quality. RESULTS: A total of 21 participants were recruited. All participants completed the study; adherence to prescribed step counts was 91% at follow-up. Analysis found a significant improvement in happiness, as measured by the Oxford Happiness Questionnaire (mean difference 0.3, p=0.003), and a borderline significant improvement in 6MWT distance (mean difference 35 m, p=0.008). CONCLUSION: This pilot study demonstrated the feasibility of a pedometer-based walking program for survivors of breast cancer and HNC undergoing radiation 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".