Effect of Exercise on Cancer-Related Fatigue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerous randomized controlled trials have been conducted to determine efficacy of exercise on cancer-related fatigue. However, many trials lacked sufficient power to demonstrate significant differences, and little is known about how the effect of exercise differs depending on patient- and intervention-level characteristics. A meta-analysis was performed to determine whether exercise reduces fatigue compared with usual care or nonexercise control intervention in patients with cancer. The authors searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL. Two authors independently extracted the data. Randomized controlled trials comparing exercise with control intervention in cancer patients in which fatigue was quantified were eligible. Seventy-two randomized controlled trials were identified, 71 in adults and 1 in children. Exercise had a moderate effect on reducing fatigue compared with control intervention. Exercise also improved depression and sleep disturbance. Type of exercise did not significantly influence the effect on fatigue, depression, or sleep disturbance. Exercise effect was larger in the studies published 2009 or later. There was only one pediatric study. The results of this study suggest that exercise is effective for the management of cancer-related fatigue.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".