Exercise and Prostate Cancer: Evidence and Proposed Mechanisms for Disease Modification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exercise has many potential benefits in relation to cancer. Apart from primary prevention, these include improvement of nonspecific cancer-related symptoms, amelioration of symptoms and cardiovascular risk factors related to cancer treatment, and improvements in various quality-of-life-related factors. Increasing evidence also points toward improved cancer-free and overall survival in cancer patients who undertake regular exercise, findings which should encourage further research in this area. Obesity is known to be associated with a proinflammatory, prothrombotic humoral milieu, which may promote aggressiveness in prostate cancer through interactions with NK-cell-mediated killing of circulating tumor cells, through platelet-circulating tumor cell interactions, and through alterations in adipokine and myokine profile among others. Physical activity reduces levels of systemic inflammatory mediators and so exercise may represent an accessible and cost-effective means of ameliorating the proinflammatory effects of obesity in cancer patients. This review outlines the evidence for the benefits of exercise in these patients, focusing on prostate cancer, and delineates current theories of the underlying biological mechanisms. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 25(9); 1281-8. ©2016 AACR.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".