Predictors of Adherence to Supervised and Unsupervised Exercise in the Alberta Physical Activity and Breast Cancer Prevention Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined the predictors of adherence separately for supervised and unsupervised exercise or in postmenopausal women over an extended time period. Here, we report the predictors of exercise adherence in the Alberta Physical Activity and Breast Cancer Prevention (ALPHA) Trial. METHODS: The ALPHA trial randomized 160 postmenopausal women in Calgary and Edmonton, Canada to an exercise intervention that consisted of an average of 200 min/wk of supervised (123 minutes) and unsupervised (77 minutes) exercise over a 1-year period. Baseline data were collected on demographic, health-related fitness, quality of life, and motivational variables from the theory of planned behavior. RESULTS: Participants completed an average of 95% of their supervised exercise and 79% of their unsupervised exercise. In multivariate analyses, 8.1% (P=.001) of the variance was explained for supervised exercise by being from Edmonton (β=0.22; P=.004) and older (β=0.15; P=.050). For unsupervised exercise, 21.1% (P<.001) of the variance was explained by being from Calgary (β=-0.39; P<.001), having a family history of breast cancer (β=0.21; P=.003), and having higher vitality (β=0.19; P=.011). CONCLUSIONS: Predictors of adherence may differ for supervised and unsupervised exercise, moreover, predicting adherence to supervised exercise may be particularly difficult in well-controlled efficacy trials.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".