The group psychotherapy and home‐based physical exercise (group‐hope) trial in cancer survivors: Physical fitness and quality of life outcomes
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical exercise has been shown to enhance quality of life (QOL) in cancer survivors using pretest-posttest designs and compared to usual care (i.e. no intervention). In the present study, we conducted a randomized controlled trial to determine if exercise could improve QOL in cancer survivors beyond the known benefits of group psychotherapy (GP). We matched 22 GP classes (N=108) on content and then randomly assigned 11 (n=48) to GP alone and 11 (n=60) to GP plus home-based, moderate-intensity exercise (GP+EX). Participants completed a physical fitness test and QOL measures (e.g. Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scales) at the beginning and end of GP classes (about 10 weeks). We had excellent recruitment (81%), retention (89%), and adherence (84%) rates and a modest contamination (22%) rate. Using intention-to-treat repeated measures analyses of variance, we found significant Time by Condition interactions for functional well-being, fatigue, and sum of skinfolds. We also found borderline significant interactions for physical well-being, satisfaction with life, and flexibility. All interactions favored the GP+EX condition. We conclude that a home-based, moderate intensity exercise program may im-prove QOL in cancer survivors beyond the benefits of GP, particularly in relation to physical and functional well-being.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it