A Comparison of Physical Activity Preferences Among Breast, Prostate, and Colorectal Cancer Survivors in Nova Scotia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physical activity (PA) preferences may vary by cancer survivor group, but few studies have made direct comparisons. The purpose of this study was to compare the PA preferences of breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer survivors in Nova Scotia (NS), Canada. METHODS: Two thousand sixty-two breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer survivors diagnosed between 2003 to 2011 were identified by the Nova Scotia Cancer Registry and mailed a questionnaire assessing PA preferences and standard demographic and medical variables. RESULTS: Based on 741 respondents, numerous differences emerged among the cancer sites. Some of the larger differences (>20% difference) among breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer survivors, respectively, were identified for engaging in PA with other cancer survivors (42% vs. 22% vs. 30%; P < .001) and with their friends (65% vs. 40% vs. 64%; P < .001); engaging in PA at a community fitness center (59% vs. 39% vs. 45%; P < .001); and preferring supervised (60% vs. 34% vs. 45%; P < .001) and group (53% vs. 24% vs. 41%; P < .001) sessions. Differences were also found within each survivor group based on demographic and medical variables including PA behavior, age, and perceived general health. CONCLUSIONS: Breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer survivors have some differences in PA preferences that may inform targeted PA program interventions.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".