MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Associations between Physical Activity and Quality of Life in Ovarian Cancer Survivors

2007· article· en· W2331301041 on OpenAlexaff
Clare Stevinson, Wylam Faught, Helen Steed, Katia Tonkin, Aliya B. Ladha, Jeffrey K. Vallance, Valerie Capstick, Alexandra Schepansky, Kerry S. Courneya

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth and Wellbeing Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOvarian cancerQuality of life (healthcare)Internal medicineCancerCancer survivorDiseasePhysical therapyGerontologyGynecologyOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Improved survival rates for ovarian cancer has placed greater importance on understanding the factors that contribute to quality of life (QoL) for survivors. Studies with other cancer survivor populations have demonstrated a positive association between QoL and physical activity (PA), but no study to date has investigated this in ovarian cancer survivors. PURPOSE: To determine the prevalence of PA among ovarian cancer survivors, and to examine differences in QoL between those meeting, and not meeting, public health guidelines for PA. METHODS: Ovarian cancer survivors identified from a provincial cancer registry were mailed a questionnaire measuring self-reported PA (Godin Leisure Time Exercise Questionnaire) and cancer specific-QoL (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Ovarian). RESULTS: 359 ovarian cancer survivors completed the questionnaire (51.4% response rate). 31.2% reported achieving recommended levels of PA in the past month (i.e., at least 60 minutes of vigorous or 150 minutes of moderate PA per week). Overall QoL was significantly higher (mean difference: 12.5; 95% CI: 9.1 to 16.0; p < 0.001) in those meeting guidelines (120.9 ± 13.3) compared to those not meeting guidelines (108.4 ± 19.2). Disease status was the only variable to moderate this association. Among participants currently disease free, those meeting guidelines had a 9.2 (95% CI: 5.5 to 13.0; p < 0.001) higher QoL score, whereas among participants with current disease, the advantage for those meeting guidelines was 26.3 (95% CI: 18.6 to 34.1; p < 0.001). Analysis of QoL dimensions indicated higher scores for those meeting guidelines for physical (p < 0.001), functional (p < 0.001), emotional (p < 0.001), and social wellbeing (p = 0.045), and the ovarian cancer-specific subscale (p < 0.001). Adjusting for important demographic and medical variables did not alter any of these findings. CONCLUSIONS: Few ovarian survivors are meeting public health guidelines for PA, but those that are meeting guidelines report significantly and meaningfully higher QoL. These findings are compatible with evidence from other cancer survivor populations, and suggest that clinical trials investigating the causal effects of PA on QoL in ovarian cancer survivors are warranted.

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 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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.394 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseSame topicHealth and Wellbeing ResearchFrench-language works237,207