Six-Month Follow-up of Patient-Rated Outcomes in a Randomized Controlled Trial of Exercise Training during Breast Cancer Chemotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few exercise trials in cancer patients have reported longer-term follow-up. Here, we report a 6-month follow-up of exercise behavior and patient-rated outcomes from an exercise trial in breast cancer patients. METHODS: Breast cancer patients initiating adjuvant chemotherapy (n = 242) were randomly assigned to usual care (n = 82), resistance exercise training (RET; n = 82), or aerobic exercise training (AET; n = 78) for the duration of their chemotherapy. At 6-month follow-up, participants were mailed a questionnaire that assessed quality of life, self-esteem, fatigue, anxiety, depression, and exercise behavior. RESULTS: Two hundred one (83.1%) participants provided 6-month follow-up data. Adjusted linear mixed-model analyses showed that, at 6-month follow-up, the RET group reported higher self-esteem [adjusted mean difference, 1.6; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.1-3.2; P = 0.032] and the AET group reported lower anxiety (adjusted mean difference, -4.7; 95% CI, -0.0 to -9.3; P = 0.049) compared with the usual care group. Moreover, compared with participants reporting no regular exercise during the follow-up period, those reporting regular aerobic and resistance exercise also reported better patient-rated outcomes, including quality of life (adjusted mean difference, 9.5; 95% CI, 1.2-17.8; P = 0.025). CONCLUSIONS: Improvements in self-esteem observed with RET during breast cancer chemotherapy were maintained at 6-month follow-up whereas reductions in anxiety not observed with AET during breast cancer chemotherapy emerged at 6-month follow-up. Moreover, adopting a combined aerobic and resistance exercise program after breast cancer chemotherapy was associated with further improvements in patient-rated outcomes. Exercise training during breast cancer chemotherapy may result in some longer-term and late effects for selected patient-rated outcomes.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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".