Effects of Exercise Dose and Type During Breast Cancer Chemotherapy: Multicenter Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Exercise improves physical functioning and symptom management during breast cancer chemotherapy, but the effects of different doses and types of exercise are unknown. METHODS: A multicenter trial in Canada randomized 301 breast cancer patients to thrice-weekly supervised exercise during chemotherapy consisting of either a standard dose of 25 to 30 minutes of aerobic exercise (STAN; n = 96), a higher dose of 50 to 60 minutes of aerobic exercise (HIGH; n = 101), or a combined dose of 50 to 60 minutes of aerobic and resistance exercise (COMB; n = 104). The primary endpoint was physical functioning assessed by the Medical Outcomes Survey-Short Form (SF)-36. Secondary endpoints were other physical functioning scales, symptoms, fitness, and chemotherapy completion. All statistical tests were linear mixed model analyses, and the P values were two-sided. RESULTS: Follow-up assessment of patient-reported outcomes was 99.0%. Adjusted linear mixed-model analyses showed that neither HIGH (+0.8; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.8 to 2.4; P = .30) nor COMB (+0.5; 95% CI = -1.1 to 2.1; P = .52] were superior to STAN for the primary outcome. In secondary analyses not adjusted for multiple comparisons, HIGH was superior to STAN for the SF-36 physical component summary (P = .04), SF-36 bodily pain (P = .02), and endocrine symptoms (P = .02). COMB was superior to STAN for endocrine symptoms (P = .009) and superior to STAN (P < .001) and HIGH (P < .001) for muscular strength. HIGH was superior to COMB for the SF-36 bodily pain (P = .04) and aerobic fitness (P = .03). No differences emerged for body composition or chemotherapy completion. CONCLUSIONS: A higher volume of aerobic or combined exercise is achievable and safe during breast cancer chemotherapy and may manage declines in physical functioning and worsening symptoms better than standard volumes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".