Hemoglobin and Aerobic Fitness Changes with Supervised Exercise Training in Breast Cancer Patients Receiving Chemotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Aerobic exercise training (AET) is known to increase RBC production; however, this has not been evaluated in breast cancer patients undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy. The purpose of this study was to examine the changes in hemoglobin (Hb) levels in the Supervised Trial of Aerobic versus Resistance Training (START) and to determine its association with changes in VO(2peak). METHODS: Two hundred and forty-two breast cancer patients initiating chemotherapy were randomized to usual care (n = 82), resistance exercise (RET, n = 82), or AET (n = 78) groups for the duration of their chemotherapy (median, 17 weeks). Supervised exercise was thrice weekly based on standard AET and RET prescriptions. Aerobic fitness (VO(2peak)) and Hb concentration were measured at baseline and end of chemotherapy. RESULTS: Regardless of the exercise group, Hb declined over the course of chemotherapy (13.4 ± 10.0 to 11.8 ± 11.5 g/dL, P < 0.01). Both AET and RET groups had significant, moderate correlations between the change in VO(2peak) and Hb (AET: r = 0.49, P < 0.001; RET: r = 0.39, P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: The results indicate that regular exercise does not protect against the decline in Hb associated with chemotherapy in breast cancer patients, but resulted in a stronger association between Hb and VO(2peak). IMPACT: Even with the chemotherapy-induced decline in Hb, breast cancer patients can maintain their aerobic capacity by participating in regular aerobic exercise. Further studies are required to determine safe intensity levels that may stimulate the maintenance of Hb levels in breast cancer patients.
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 | 0.001 | 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".