MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129820993 · doi:10.1158/1055-9965.epi-04-0703

Controlled Physical Activity Trials in Cancer Survivors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2005· review· en· W2129820993 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCardiorespiratory fitnessMedicinePsychological interventionMeta-analysisQuality of life (healthcare)Physical activityPhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialPhysical fitnessCancerSystematic reviewAdverse effectMEDLINEInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Approximately 9.8 million cancer survivors are alive in the United States today. Enthusiasm for prescribing physical activity for cancer survivors depends on evidence regarding whether physical activity during or after completion of treatment results in improved outcomes such as cardiorespiratory fitness, fatigue, symptoms, quality of life, mental health, or change in body size. METHODS: A systematic qualitative and quantitative review of the English language scientific literature identified controlled trials of physical activity interventions in cancer survivors during and after treatment. Data from 32 studies were abstracted, weighted mean effect sizes (WMES) were calculated from the 22 high-quality studies, and a systematic level of evidence criteria was applied to evaluate 25 outcomes. RESULTS: There was qualitative and quantitative evidence of a small to moderate effect of physical activity interventions on cardiorespiratory fitness (WMES = 0.51 and 0.65 during and after treatment respectively, P < 0.01), physiologic outcomes and symptoms during treatment (WMES = 0.28, P < 0.01 and 0.39, P < 0.01, respectively), and vigor posttreatment (WMES = 0.83, P = 0.04). Physical activity was well tolerated in cancer survivors during and after treatment, but the available literature does not allow conclusions to be drawn regarding adverse events from participation. CONCLUSIONS: Physical activity improves cardiorespiratory fitness during and after cancer treatment, symptoms and physiologic effects during treatment, and vigor posttreatment. Additional physical activity intervention studies are needed to more firmly establish the range and magnitude of positive effects of physical activity among cancer survivors.

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Meta-analysislow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.549
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0530.015
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.338
GPT teacher head0.526
Teacher spread0.188 · 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