Effects of Exercise Training on Fasting Insulin, Insulin Resistance, Insulin-like Growth Factors, and Insulin-like Growth Factor Binding Proteins in Postmenopausal Breast Cancer Survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Insulin, insulin-like growth factors (IGFs) I and II, and IGF binding proteins (IGFBPs) 1 and 3 have been implicated in breast cancer outcomes. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to determine the physiological effects of exercise training on changes in these biological markers in postmenopausal breast cancer survivors. Fifty-three postmenopausal breast cancer survivors were randomly assigned to an exercise ( n = 25) or control group ( n = 28). The exercise group trained on cycle ergometers three times per week for 15 weeks. The control group did not train. End points included changes in fasting insulin, glucose, insulin resistance, IGF-I, IGF-II, IGFBP-1, IGFBP-3, and IGF-I:IGFBP-3 molar ratio between baseline and week 15. All of the statistical tests were two-sided (α = 0.05). Fifty-two participants completed the trial. The exercise group completed 44.3 of 45 (98.4%) prescribed exercise sessions. Baseline hormone concentrations did not differ between groups except that IGF-II was higher in the exercise group ( P = 0.011). No significant differences between groups were observed for changes in fasting insulin (+6.3 pmol/liter; P = 0.941), glucose (+0.09 mmol/liter; P = 0.824), insulin resistance (+0.4; P = 0.247), IGF-II (−40.7 ng/ml; P = 0.101), or IGFBP-1 (+1.4 ng/ml; P = 0.774). However, significant differences between groups were observed for changes in IGF-I (−7.4 ng/ml; P = 0.045), IGFBP-3 (+180.5 ng/ml; P = 0.021), and IGF-I:IGFBP-3 molar ratio (−0.006; P = 0.017). Exercise training had significant physiological effects on IGF-I, IGFBP-3, and IGF-I:IGFBP-3 molar ratio in postmenopausal breast cancer survivors. The clinical implications of these findings remain to be defined.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".