MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effect of Exercise Training on Peak Oxygen Consumption in Patients with Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

2011· review· en· W2165229942 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Oncologist · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisConfidence intervalVO2 maxRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyAdverse effectPooled varianceInternal medicineHeart rate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: We conducted a meta-analysis to determine the effects of supervised exercise training on peak oxygen consumption (VO(2peak)) in adults with cancer. METHODS: A literature review using Ovid MEDLINE (1950-2010), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1991-2010), AMED (1985-2010), Embase (1988-2010), PubMed (1966-2010), Scopus (1950-2010), and Web of Science (1950-2010) was performed to identify randomized controlled trials examining the effects of supervised exercise training on measurement of VO(2peak) (via gas exchange analysis) in adults with cancer. Studies were selected using predetermined criteria, and two independent reviewers extracted data. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) were calculated using random effect models. RESULTS: Six studies evaluated VO(2peak) involving a total of 571 adult cancer patients (exercise, n = 344; usual care control, n = 227). Pooled data indicated that exercise training was associated with a statistically significant increase in VO(2peak) (WMD, 2.90 ml·kg(-1)·min(-1); 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-4.64); however, significant heterogeneity was evident in this estimate (I(2), 87%). Usual care (control) was associated with a significant decline in VO(2peak) from baseline to postintervention (WMD, -1.02 ml·kg(-1)·min(-1); 95% CI, -1.46 to -0.58; I(2), 22%). Sensitivity analyses indicated superior improvements in VO(2peak) for studies conducted for a shorter duration (<4 months) and following the completion of adjuvant therapy (p-values < .001). Exercise training was not associated with a higher incidence of adverse events, although safety was not rigorously monitored or reported. CONCLUSIONS: Supervised exercise training is associated with significant improvements in VO(2peak) following a diagnosis of early-stage cancer, with minimal adverse events.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.943
Threshold uncertainty score0.660

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.161
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it