Dog ownership and physical activity among breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dog ownership has been associated with higher rates of physical activity (PA) in several populations but no study to date has focused on cancer survivors. The purpose of this study was to examine the associations between dog ownership and PA among cancer survivors and to examine correlates of dog ownership. METHODS: A stratified random sample of 2062 breast cancer survivors, prostate cancer survivors, and colorectal cancer survivors was mailed a questionnaire assessing PA, social cognitive, dog ownership, demographic, and medical variables. RESULTS: Overall, 25% of the sample was dog owners (DOs). There were no significant differences in moderate, vigorous, or total PA minutes between DOs and non-dog owners. There was a significant difference in light PA minutes in favor of DOs (153 vs 112 minutes; 95% CI = 4 to 77; P = .030), however, this was largely restricted to breast cancer survivors (143 vs 79 minutes; 95% CI = 25 to 102; P = .001) who also reported fewer vigorous PA minutes (18 vs 39 minutes; 95% CI = -42 to -1; P = .042). Survivors were more likely to be DOs if they had breast cancer (P = .054), a higher income (P = .021), radiation therapy (P = .029), chemotherapy (P = .010), were younger (P < .001), employed (P < .001), and a current smoker (P = .015). Few social cognitive variables were associated with DO. CONCLUSIONS: Dog ownership among cancer survivors was not associated with moderate-to-vigorous PA but was associated with light PA. Further research is necessary to determine if promoting dog ownership and dog walking among cancer survivors may increase PA and possibly improve health outcomes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".