A Multicenter Randomized Trial of the Effects of Exercise Dose and Type on Psychosocial Distress in Breast Cancer Patients Undergoing Chemotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Exercise may improve psychosocial distress in patients with cancer; however, few studies have examined the effects of different types or doses of exercise, or whether exercise effects are related to baseline depression levels. METHODS: In a multicenter trial in Canada, we randomized 301 patients with breast cancer initiating chemotherapy to thrice weekly, supervised exercise consisting of either a standard dose of 25 to 30 minutes of aerobic exercise (STAN; n = 96), a higher dose of 50 to 60 minutes of aerobic exercise (HIGH; n = 101), or a combined dose of 50 to 60 minutes of aerobic and resistance exercise (COMB; n = 104). The primary endpoint was depression assessed by the Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression scale at baseline, twice during chemotherapy, and postchemotherapy. Secondary endpoints were anxiety, perceived stress, and self-esteem. RESULTS: Repeated measures ANOVA indicated that neither HIGH [mean difference = -0.9; 95% confidence interval (CI), +0.0 to -1.8; P = 0.061] nor COMB (mean difference = -0.4; 95% CI, +0.5 to -1.3; P = 0.36) was superior to STAN for managing depressive symptoms. In a planned subgroup analysis, there was a significant interaction with baseline depression levels (P interaction = 0.027) indicating that COMB and HIGH were effective for managing depressive symptoms in patients with clinical levels of depressive symptoms at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with a standard volume of aerobic exercise, higher volumes of exercise did not help manage depressive symptoms in unselected patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy, but they were effective in patients with clinical levels of depressive symptoms at baseline. IMPACT: A phase III exercise trial targeting depressed patients with breast cancer 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".