Moderator Effects in a Randomized Controlled Trial of Exercise Training in Lymphoma Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Healthy Exercise for Lymphoma Patients trial showed that aerobic exercise training improved important health outcomes in lymphoma patients. Here, we examine potential moderators of the exercise training response. METHODS: Lymphoma patients were stratified by major disease type and current treatment status and randomly assigned to usual care (n = 62) or aerobic exercise training (n = 60) for 12 weeks. Endpoints were quality of life, cardiovascular fitness, and body composition. Moderators were patient preference for group assignment, age, sex, marital status, disease stage, body mass index, and general health. RESULTS: Patient preference did not statistically moderate the effects of exercise training on quality of life (P for interaction = 0.36), but the interaction effect of 7.8 points favoring patients with no preference was clinically meaningful. Marital status (P for interaction = 0.083), general health (P for interaction = 0.012), and body mass index (P for interaction = 0.010) moderated the effects of aerobic exercise training on quality of life with better outcomes for unmarried versus married patients, patients in poor/fair health versus good-to-excellent health, and normal weight/obese versus overweight patients. Disease stage (P for interaction = 0.056) and general health (P for interaction = 0.012) moderated the effects of aerobic exercise training on body composition with better outcomes for patients with advanced disease versus early disease/no disease and patients in good health versus very good-to-excellent health. No variables moderated intervention effects on cardiovascular fitness. Findings were not explained by differences in adherence. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically available variables predicted quality of life and body composition responses to aerobic exercise training in lymphoma patients. If replicated, these results may inform future randomized trials and clinical practice.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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".