MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128684374 · doi:10.1123/jsep.33.2.235

Reduced Barriers Mediated Physical Activity Maintenance Among Breast Cancer Survivors

2011· article· en· W2128684374 on OpenAlexafffund
Laura Q. Rogers, Stephen Markwell, Patricia Hopkins‐Price, Sandy Vicari, Kerry S. Courneya, Karen Hoelzer, Steven J. Verhulst

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sport and Exercise Psychology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Cancer InstituteCanada Research ChairsJohns Hopkins University
KeywordsBreast cancerPsychologyPhysical activityCancerPhysical therapyInternal medicineMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To better understand mechanisms of physical activity (PA) behavior change in breast cancer survivors, we examined mediation of a successful PA behavior change intervention by social cognitive theory (SCT) constructs. Our exploratory study randomized 41 breast cancer survivors to receive the 3-month intervention (INT) or usual care (UC). We used the Freedman and Schatzkin approach to examine mediation of intervention effect on PA 3 months postintervention by changes in SCT constructs from baseline to immediately postintervention. Compared with UC, the INT group reported lower barriers interference (mean difference = -7.8, 95% CI [-15.1, -0.4], d = -0.67, p = .04) and greater PA enjoyment (mean difference = 0.7, 95% CI [0, 1.5], d = 0.61, p = .06). Barriers interference mediated 39% (p = .004) of the intervention effect on PA 3 months postintervention. PA enjoyment was not a significant mediator. Reducing barriers to PA partially explained our intervention effect.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations85
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sport and Exercise PsychologySame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207