MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141966658 · doi:10.1200/jco.2001.19.3.657

Structured Exercise Improves Physical Functioning in Women With Stages I and II Breast Cancer: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial

2001· article· en· W2141966658 on OpenAlexaff
Roanne Segal, William K. Evans, Darren Johnson, Julie Smith, Sal Colletta, Jane Gayton, Stephanie Woodard, George A. Wells, Robert D. Reid

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsOttawa Regional Cancer Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerQuality of life (healthcare)Physical therapyRandomized controlled trialAerobic exerciseAerobic capacityWeight lossClinical trialPost-hoc analysisCancerObesityInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Self-directed and supervised exercise were compared with usual care in a clinical trial designed to evaluate the effect of structured exercise on physical functioning and other dimensions of health-related quality of life in women with stages I and II breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred twenty-three women with stages I and II breast cancer completed baseline evaluations of generic and disease- and site-specific health-related quality of life, aerobic capacity, and body weight. Participants were randomly allocated to one of three intervention groups: usual care (control group), self-directed exercise, or supervised exercise. Quality of life, aerobic capacity, and body weight measures were repeated at 26 weeks. The primary outcome was the change in the Short Form-36 physical functioning scale between baseline and 26 weeks. RESULTS: Physical functioning in the control group decreased by 4.1 points, whereas it increased by 5.7 points and 2.2 points in the self-directed and supervised exercise groups, respectively (P =.04). Post hoc analysis showed a moderately large (and clinically important) difference between the self-directed and control groups (9.8 points; P =.01) and a more modest difference between the supervised and control groups (6.3 points; P =.09). No significant differences between groups were observed for changes in quality of life scores. In a secondary analysis of participants stratified by type of adjuvant therapy, supervised exercise improved aerobic capacity (+3.5 mL/kg/min; P =.01) and reduced body weight (-4.8 kg; P <.05) compared with usual care only in participants not receiving chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Physical exercise can blunt some of the negative side effects of breast cancer treatment, including reduced physical functioning. Self-directed exercise is an effective way to improve physical functioning compared with usual care. In participants not receiving chemotherapy, supervised exercise may increase aerobic capacity and reduce body weight compared with usual care.

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)0.005
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.355 · 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

Citations578
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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