A Phase I Study Examining the Feasibility and Safety of an Aerobic Exercise Intervention in Patients With Rectal Cancer During and After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility and safety of an aerobic exercise intervention in patients with rectal cancer during and after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACRT). . DESIGN: A prospective, single-group design with assessments at pre-NACRT, post-NACRT, and presurgery. . SETTING: The Cross Cancer Institute and University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada. . SAMPLE: 18 patients with rectal cancer scheduled to receive long-course NACRT followed by definitive surgery. . METHODS: Participants received a supervised moderate-intensity aerobic exercise program three days per week during six weeks of NACRT followed by an unsupervised aerobic exercise program for 150 minutes or more per week for 6-8 weeks prior to surgery. . MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Eligibility rate, recruitment rate, follow-up rate, exercise adherence, serious adverse events, health-related fitness outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes. . FINDINGS: Follow-up rates post-NACRT were 83% for health-related fitness outcomes and 94% for patient-reported outcomes. Patients attended a median of 83% of their supervised exercise sessions and completed a mean of 222 minutes per week (SD = 155) of their unsupervised exercise. No serious adverse events were observed or reported. Most health-related fitness outcomes and patient-reported outcomes declined during NACRT and recovered after NACRT. . CONCLUSIONS: Aerobic exercise is feasible and safe for patients with rectal cancer during and after NACRT. . IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Patients with rectal cancer are able to engage in moderate-intensity aerobic exercise during NACRT.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".