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 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

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.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
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 score0.340
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.065
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