Evaluation of the Strides to Strength™ Cancer Rehabilitation Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To 1) evaluate the changes in health-related physical fitness and quality of life (QoL) in 132 cancer survivors after completing a clinically-based, supervised, individualized cancer rehabilitation program and 2) determine whether these changes were influenced by age, time since diagnosis, cancer stage, or pre-diagnosis exercise frequency. METHODS: Participants (55 ± 12 y, 84% female, mixed diagnoses and treatment) enrolled in Strides to Strength during or after cancer treatment. The intervention included biweekly exercise sessions consisting of aerobic, strength and flexibility training, as well as, guided meditation. Cancer exercise trainers administered fitness assessments and questionnaires before and after the intervention. RESULTS: Fitness and QoL changes for the group are shown in Table 1. Sub-group analyses by age, time since diagnosis, pre-cancer exercise frequency and stage of cancer revealed the following: in general, improvements in fitness and QoL occurred in all sub-groups, with greater QoL improvement in those who enrolled within 6-12 months of their diagnosis (p < 0.01) and in individuals ≤39 years (p <0.01); while those who exercised ≥3x/week prior to cancer diagnosis had greater improvements in the six-minute walk test (p=0.04)Table 1: Changes in selected measures of health-related physical fitness and QoL.CONCLUSION: In general, cancer survivors who participated in a 24-session clinically-based cancer rehabilitation program experienced improvements in QoL and the components of health-related physical fitness with the exception of body composition. Age, pre-diagnosis exercise frequency and time since diagnosis at enrollment appear to influence the amount of change.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".