Effects of lifestyle modification after breast cancer treatment: a systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is no consensus in the literature regarding the effectiveness of lifestyle modification interventions, including recommendations about specific diet or exercise program for patients with breast cancer. Diet interventions and regular physical activity may reduce the risk of breast cancer and its recurrence. The primary aim of our study is to evaluate the effects of different lifestyle modification interventions (diet and physical activity) in the survival of patients with stages I to III breast cancer after treatment. METHODS/DESIGN: This review will be conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Intervention and will be reported following the PRISMA statement recommendations. CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases will be searched for peer-reviewed literature. Randomized controlled trials of diet, exercise, or both, compared with usual care, after treatment of breast cancer stage I to III will be included in the systematic review. Two authors will independently screen titles and abstracts of studies for potential eligibility. Data will be combined using random-effect meta-analysis models with restricted maximum-likelihood as variance estimator, and will be presented as relative risk or standardized mean difference with 95% CI. The quality of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework and summary of findings tables will be presented for patient important outcomes. DISCUSSION: Our study may improve the current understanding of the role that lifestyle-modifiable factors can play in saving or prolonging the lives of women who have been treated for breast cancer, and also on modifying their quality of life. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: The review has been registered with PROSPERO (registration number CRD42014008743).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.066 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.018 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.107 | 0.014 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".