Newly diagnosed lung cancer patients’ preferences for and beliefs about physical activity prior to chemotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical activity has been found to have a number of benefits for lung cancer patients yet very little information is available concerning physical activity beliefs and preferences for this population. The purpose of the study was to explore physical activity programming and counseling preferences and beliefs about physical activity in newly diagnosed lung cancer patients scheduled to receive chemotherapy. A total of 43 new diagnosed lung cancer patients completed a researcher-administered survey prior to commencing chemotherapy. Results indicated that only 7 participants (17%) reported meeting public health recommendations for physical activity yet the majority of participants (n = 28) indicated interest or possible interest in physical activity counseling. Many participants also indicated interest or possible interest in an exercise program (n = 29) for lung cancer survivors, preferring it to start during chemotherapy (n = 20), for it to be home based (n = 21), and moderate in intensity (n = 22). The most common behavioral belief (advantage) of physical activity was to build/maintain strength (n = 26) and the most common control belief (barrier) was fatigue (n = 11). These data suggest that physical activity counseling and programming may be well received by newly diagnosed lung cancer patients. Information about physical activity and programming preferences and beliefs from this study may be useful for the design of optimal physical activity interventions for lung cancer patients.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".