Physical activity and quality of life after radical prostatectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are significant post-surgical reductions in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in prostate cancer (PCa) patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP). Physical activity (PA) interventions have improved treatment outcomes for PCa patients undergoing radiation and hormone therapy, but PA effects have not previously been examined in the RP setting. This study examined the relationship between preoperative PA levels and postoperative HRQOL outcomes in PCa patients treated with RP. METHODS: Sixty patients were interviewed regarding lifetime PA and completed preoperative (2 weeks prior to surgery) and postoperative (4 weeks after surgery) HRQOL questionnaires. Aerobic fitness testing was conducted on a subsample of 22 patients. RESULTS: Higher levels of total past-year PA and occupational PA significantly correlated with lesser HRQOL declines from presurgery to 4 weeks post-surgery (Beta = -0.364, p = 0.037 and Beta = -0.243, p = 0.089, respectively) in models adjusted for age, postoperative questionnaire completion date, Gleason score and education. Past-year occupational PA was highly positively correlated with past-year total PA (r = 0.785, p < 0.001). Lifetime total PA was correlated with estimated VO(2) max (r = 0.486, p = 0.026) in the 22 patients who were aerobically tested. Lifetime and past-year PA volumes were not correlated with waist circumference or body mass index. INTERPRETATION: Declines in HRQOL after RP may be reduced in patients with higher preoperative levels of self-reported PA. These findings require further study with larger samples to confirm results. If confirmed, findings suggest exercise preoperatively may improve HRQOL outcomes after RP.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".