MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2516874683

The development of evidence-based exercise guidelines for people with cancer

2015· article· en· W2516874683 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jennifer R. Tomasone, Roanne Segal, Caroline Zwaal, Esther Green, Teresa M. Petrella, Andrew Loblaw

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreQueen's UniversityCancer Care OntarioCanadian Partnership Against CancerUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGuidelineCritical appraisalMedicineSystematic reviewMultidisciplinary approachRehabilitationProtocol (science)Quality of life (healthcare)Health careEvidence-based medicineMEDLINEAerobic exerciseEvidence-based practicePhysical therapyMedical educationPsychologyAlternative medicineNursing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exercise is a safe, cost-effective means to prevent and manage secondary health complications and enhance quality of life (QoL) among cancer survivors (CS). Published exercise recommendations for CS have been based on literature reviews and roundtable consensus and were not underpinned by a robust, standardized guideline development process using rigorous methodology (e.g., a systematic review of research evidence, extensive peer review). The objective of this study was to systematically develop evidence-informed exercise guidelines to improve aerobic and muscular fitness, and increase QOL, among CS. The Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II guideline development protocol was used as a methodological strategy. The evidence base for the guideline development process consisted of a systematic review and quality appraisal of research examining the effects of exercise on aerobic and muscular fitness and QoL among adults with cancer. A multidisciplinary working group reflected on the evidence and generated the guidelines. The guidelines underwent a four-stage review process in which they were reviewed by 12 internal content experts, three guideline methodology experts, five external content experts, and 69 potential end-users, with refinements made at each stage. The guidelines contain recommendations regarding the duration, frequency, and intensity of aerobic and resistance-training sessions. The guideline also includes considerations for safety, delivery methods, and long-term maintenance of exercise behaviour. More research is necessary to generate more exact exercise programs for specific cancer types. Oncologists, primary care providers, and other members of the healthcare team (e.g., rehabilitation therapists, kinesiologists, psychologists) are encouraged to adopt these rigorously developed guidelines.Acknowledgments: Systematic review and guideline development supported by the Psychosocial Oncology Program at Cancer Care Ontario.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.080
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.264
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.423

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0800.264
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0120.009
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0080.006
Research integrity0.0090.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.271
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.132 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCancer survivorship and care→French-language works237,207→