Review of exercise studies in breast cancer survivors: attention to principles of exercise training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Research supports the use of exercise to improve quality of life and reduce the side effects of breast cancer treatment, such as fatigue and decreased aerobic capacity. Previously published reviews have focused on reporting the outcomes of exercise interventions, but have not critically examined the exercise prescriptions. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the application of the principles of exercise training in the exercise prescriptions reported in intervention studies for breast cancer survivors. METHODS: Databases were searched for randomised controlled trials of exercise in women diagnosed with breast cancer. Data were extracted to evaluate the application of the principles of exercise training, the reporting of the components of the exercise prescription and the reporting of adherence to the exercise prescription. RESULTS: Of the 29 papers included, none applied all principles of exercise training. Specificity was applied by 64%, progression by 41%, overload by 31%, initial values by 62% and diminishing returns and reversibility by 7% of trials. No study reported all components of the exercise prescription. CONCLUSION: The application of the principles of exercise training varied greatly, and reporting of the exercise prescribed and completed was incomplete. When principles of exercise training are applied to the development of exercise protocols, there is greater confidence that non-significant findings reflect lack of efficacy of exercise rather than deficiencies in the prescription. Incomplete reporting of the exercise prescription and adherence to the prescription limits the reproducibility of the intervention, and the ability to determine the dose of exercise received by participants.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".