A home based, physical activity intervention increased physical activity, fitness, and vigour and reduced fatigue in sedentary women with early stage breast cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pinto BM, Frierson GM, Rabin C, et al . Home-based physical activity intervention for breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:3577–87.[OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] Q Does a home based, physical activity (PA) intervention improve fitness and wellbeing in sedentary women with early stage breast cancer? ### ![Graphic][3]</img>Design: randomised controlled trial. ### ![Graphic][4]</img>Allocation: {concealed}.* ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Blinding: {unblinded}.* ### ![Graphic][6]</img>Follow up period: 12 weeks. ### ![Graphic][7]</img>Setting: Rhode Island, USA. ### ![Graphic][8]</img>Patients: 86 women who were ⩾18 years of age (mean age 53 y) and had been diagnosed with stage 0-II breast cancer in the previous 5 years; had completed surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation; were able to walk 1 mile without assistive devices; and were sedentary (exercised <1 time per wk for 20 min at vigorous intensity or <2 times per wk for 30 min at moderate intensity for the past 6 mo). Women with previous cancer (except non-melanoma skin cancer) or a medical or psychiatric illness that would make PA compliance difficult or dangerous were excluded. ### ![Graphic][9]</img>Intervention: 43 women were allocated to home based PA, which comprised in-person instruction on … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DJournal%2Bof%2BClinical%2BOncology%26rft.stitle%253DJCO%26rft.aulast%253DPinto%26rft.auinit1%253DB.%2BM.%26rft.volume%253D23%26rft.issue%253D15%26rft.spage%253D3577%26rft.epage%253D3587%26rft.atitle%253DHome-Based%2BPhysical%2BActivity%2BIntervention%2Bfor%2BBreast%2BCancer%2BPatients%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1200%252FJCO.2005.03.080%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F15908668%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=jco&resid=23/15/3577&atom=%2Febnurs%2F9%2F1%2F19.atom [3]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [4]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif [9]: /embed/inline-graphic-7.gif
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".