Physical Activity, Weight Control, and Breast Cancer Risk and Survival: Clinical Trial Rationale and Design Considerations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Substantial observational epidemiological evidence exists that physical activity and weight control are associated with decreased risk of postmenopausal breast cancer. Uncertainty remains regarding several aspects of these associations, including the effect of possible confounding factors on these associations. We present the rationale and design for two randomized controlled trials that can help resolve this uncertainty. In a 5-year prevention trial conducted among women at high risk of breast cancer, the primary endpoint would be breast cancer incidence. For a comparable survivorship trial, the primary endpoint would be the disease-free interval and secondary endpoints would be breast cancer recurrence-free interval, second primary breast cancer, and total invasive plus in situ breast cancer. A set of inclusion and exclusion criteria is proposed for both trials. Intervention goals are the same for both trials. Goals for the weight control intervention would be, for women whose body mass index (BMI) is greater than 25 kg/m(2), to lose 10% of body weight and, for women whose BMI is less than or equal to 25 kg/m(2), to avoid weight gain. The goal for the physical activity intervention would be to achieve and maintain regular participation in a moderate-intensity physical activity program for a total of 150-225 minutes over at least 5 days per week. Sample size calculations are based on alternative assumptions about hazard ratio, adherence, follow-up duration, and power and are presented for the primary prevention and survivorship trials. Although both studies could enhance our understanding of breast cancer etiology and benefit public health, practical considerations, including smaller sample size, ease of recruitment, and reduced likelihood of early termination, favor the survivorship trial at this time.
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 | 0.339 | 0.384 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".