Effect of chemotherapy on exercise capacity in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
9115 Background: The 6 minute walking distance (6MW) is commonly used to evaluate cardiopulmonary exercise capacity in a variety of patient (pt) populations. Although the 6MW test improved in advanced breast cancer pts who responded to 2 cycles of chemotherapy, (Nieman et al 1995), little is known about exercise capacity of pts with inoperable lung cancer. We prospectively evaluated 6MW in advanced NSCLC pts at diagnosis and following 2 cycles of chemotherapy (CT). Methods: 6MW was performed twice pre (one practice test) and once post 2 cycles of CT. Intent to treat (ITT) analysis was performed in pts who did not complete the last walk. A score of 0 was assigned to those who died and the last observation was carried forward for those with missing data. Results: 59 pts were enrolled though 6 pts withdrew following the practice test due to clinical deterioration (2 pts), pulmonary embolism (1pt), leg pain following the practice walk (1 pt) and withdrawal of consent (2 pts). The mean age of the remaining 53 pts was 61 ±11, PS was 0–1 in 46 (87%) and 2 in 7 (13%) of pts. 8 pts (15%) were stage 3A/3B and 45 (85%) were stage 3B /4 NSCLC. 45 (85%) pts received platinum-based doublets, whereas 8 (15%) had monotherapy. 39 pts completed the study and 14 pts did not complete the second evaluation (4 died, 8 withdrew due to worsening symptoms and 2 were lost for follow-up). The practice 6MW of the 20 pts who dropped out was 361±99 m compared to 448± 93m for the 39 who completed the study (p=0.002). The 6MW decreased from 461±108 m (range 247–748) to 431±98 (range 431–630) in the 39 pts who completed the study (p=0.02) and from 444±106 to 395±107 in the 53 pts using the ITT analysis (p<0.003). There was a clinically significant (>54 m) decrease in 6MW in 11 pts (28%), an increase in 6MW in 2 pts (5%), and no change in 26 (67%) others. The 6MW was higher in men and in pts in stages 3A/B (p<0.05). Conclusions: Exercise capacity, measured by 6MW, declines significantly after two cycles of chemotherapy. This decline may have been underestimated as pts with lower 6MW were more likely to drop out of the study. No significant financial relationships to disclose.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".