Do Childhood Cancer Survivors Meet the Diet and Physical Activity Guidelines? A Review of Guidelines and Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite advances in cancer treatment, childhood cancer survivors are at higher risk of developing chronic health conditions than peers who have not had cancer. Being overweight or obese adds to the already elevated risk of cardiovascular diseases and metabolic abnormalities. Diet and physical activity are modifiable behaviors that reduce obesity risk and have been shown to improve cancer survival in adult cancer survivors. Specific guidelines have been developed for cancer survivors that provide advice on nutrition, physical activity and weight management following cancer diagnosis and treatment. In this review, we report on existing nutrition and physical activity guidelines for cancer survivors, supplemented by available literature on diet and physical activity status of childhood cancer survivors and their associations with health-related outcomes. The 2012 American Cancer Society (ACS) and the 2008 Children's Oncology Group (COG) guidelines provide similar advice on diet but the ACS guidelines also offer specific advice on physical activity and weight management. Thirty-one observational studies and 18 intervention trials published prior to June 2012 that met the inclusion criteria were reviewed. Results suggest that a high proportion of childhood cancer survivors had poor adherence to dietary and physical activity guidelines. Although findings from existing intervention trials are preliminary due to small sample size, available evidence suggests that exercise intervention is safe and feasible for patients and survivors of childhood cancer. Childhood cancer survivors should be encouraged to engage in physical activity, adopt a healthy diet, and maintain a healthy weight throughout cancer survivorship.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".