MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2285043000 · doi:10.1007/s12160-016-9782-z

Motivation for Different Types and Doses of Exercise During Breast Cancer Chemotherapy: a Randomized Controlled Trial

2016· article· en· W2285043000 on OpenAlexafffund
Kerry S. Courneya, Roanne Segal, James R. Vallerand, Cynthia C. Forbes, Jennifer Crawford, Lianne B. Dolan, Christine M. Friedenreich, Robert D. Reid, Karen A. Gelmon, John R. Mackey, Donald C. McKenzie

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Behavioral Medicine · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of OttawaAlberta Health ServicesUniversity Health NetworkBC Cancer AgencyOttawa HospitalAlberta HealthUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Breast Cancer Research AllianceAlberta Innovates - Health Solutions
KeywordsBreast cancerMedicinePsychological interventionRandomizationAerobic exerciseRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyHealth psychologyChemotherapyCancerInternal medicineOncologyNursingPublic health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Exercise is beneficial for breast cancer patients during chemotherapy, but their motivation to perform different types and doses of exercise is unknown. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the anticipated and experienced motivation of breast cancer patients before and after three different exercise programs during chemotherapy. METHODS: Breast cancer patients initiating chemotherapy (N = 301) were randomized to a standard dose of 25-30 min of aerobic exercise, a higher dose of 50-60 min of aerobic exercise, or a combined dose of 50-60 min of aerobic and resistance exercise. Patient preference and motivational outcomes from the theory of planned behavior (i.e., perceived benefit, enjoyment, support, difficulty, and motivation) were assessed before and after the interventions. RESULTS: At pre-randomization, breast cancer patients were significantly (p < 0.001) more likely to prefer the combined program (80.1 %); however, after the interventions there was a significant (p < 0.001) increase in the number of patients preferring the high volume program and having no preference. At pre-randomization, breast cancer patients anticipated more favorable motivational outcomes for the combined program and less favorable motivational outcomes for the high volume program (all p < 0.001). After the interventions, the motivational outcomes experienced exceeded the anticipated motivational outcomes significantly more in the high volume group than the standard or combined groups. CONCLUSIONS: Anticipated motivational outcomes for different types and doses of exercise during chemotherapy varied considerably at pre-randomization, but the motivational outcomes experienced after the three interventions were similar. Clinicians can recommend any of the three exercise interventions to breast cancer patients knowing that positive motivational outcomes will result. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00249015 .

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Behavioral MedicineSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207