MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138694790 · doi:10.1200/jco.2006.07.9988

Randomized Controlled Trial of the Effects of Print Materials and Step Pedometers on Physical Activity and Quality of Life in Breast Cancer Survivors

2007· article· en· W2138694790 on OpenAlexafffund
Jeffrey K. Vallance, Kerry S. Courneya, Ronald C. Plotnikoff, Yutaka Yasui, John R. Mackey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Cancer InstituteAlberta Heritage Foundation for Medical ResearchFondation pour la Recherche MédicaleCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerRandomized controlled trialPhysical activityQuality of life (healthcare)CancerGerontologyPhysical therapyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To determine the effects of breast cancer-specific print materials and step pedometers on physical activity (PA) and quality of life (QoL) in breast cancer survivors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Breast cancer survivors (N = 377) were randomly assigned to receive one of the following: a standard public health recommendation for PA, previously developed breast cancer-specific PA print materials, a step pedometer, or a combination of breast cancer-specific print materials and step pedometers. The primary outcome was self-reported moderate/vigorous PA minutes per week. Secondary outcomes were QoL (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast), fatigue, self-reported brisk walking, and objective step counts. Assessments were conducted at baseline and postintervention (12 weeks). RESULTS: Attrition was 10.3% (39 of 377). On the basis of linear mixed-model analyses, PA increased by 30 minutes/week in the standard recommendation group compared with 70 minutes/week in the print material group (mean difference, 39 minutes/week; 95% CI = -10 to 89; d = 0.25; P = .117), 89 minutes/week in the pedometer group (mean difference, 59 minutes/week; 95% CI, 11 to 108; d = 0.38; P = .017), and 87 minutes/week in the combined group (mean difference, 57 minutes/week; 95% CI, 8 to 106; d = 0.37; P = .022). For brisk walking minutes/week, all three intervention groups reported significantly greater increases than the standard recommendation group. The combined group also reported significantly improved QoL (mean difference, 5.8; 95% CI, 2.0 to 9.6; d = 0.33; P = .003) and reduced fatigue (mean difference, 2.3; 95% CI, 0.0 to 4.7; d = 0.25; P = .052) compared with the standard recommendation group. CONCLUSION: Breast cancer-specific PA print materials and pedometers may be effective strategies for increasing PA and QoL in breast cancer survivors. A combined approach appears to be optimal. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT00221221

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.391 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations327
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207