Effect of an exercise training intervention with resistance bands on blood cell counts during chemotherapy for lung cancer: a pilot randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Chemotherapy for lung cancer can have a detrimental effect on white blood cell (WBC) and red blood cell (RBC) counts. Physical exercise may have a role in improving WBCs and RBCs, although few studies have examined cancer patients receiving adjuvant therapies. The purpose of this pilot trial was to examine the effects of an exercise intervention utilizing resistance bands on WBCs and RBCs in lung cancer patients receiving curative intent chemotherapy. METHODS: A sample of lung cancer patients scheduled for curative intent chemotherapy was randomly assigned to the exercise intervention (EX) condition or usual care (UC) condition. The EX condition participated in a three times weekly exercise program using resistance bands for the duration of chemotherapy. RESULTS: A total of 14 lung cancer patients completed the trial. EX condition participants completed 79% of planned exercise sessions. The EX condition was able to maintain WBCs over the course of the intervention compared to declines in the UC condition (p = .008; d = 1.68). There were no significant differences in change scores in RBCs. CONCLUSIONS: Exercise with resistance bands may help attenuate declines in WBCs in lung cancer patients receiving curative intent chemotherapy. Larger trials are warranted to validate these findings. Ultimately these findings could be informative for the development of supportive care strategies for lung cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials Registration #: NCT01130714.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
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".