Effect of aerobic exercise on cancer‐associated cognitive impairment: A proof‐of‐concept <scp>RCT</scp>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Change in cognitive ability is a commonly reported adverse effect by breast cancer survivors. The underlying etiology of cognitive complaints is unclear and to date, there is limited evidence for effective intervention strategies. Exercise has been shown to improve cognitive function in older adults and animal models treated with chemotherapy. This proof-of-concept randomized controlled trial tested the effect of aerobic exercise versus usual lifestyle on cognitive function in postmenopausal breast cancer survivors. METHODS: Women, aged 40 to 65 years, postmenopausal, stages I to IIIA breast cancer, and who self-reported cognitive dysfunction following chemotherapy treatment, were recruited and randomized to a 24-week aerobic exercise intervention (EX; n = 10) or usual lifestyle control (CON; n = 9). Participants completed self-report measures of the impact of cognitive issues on quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Cognitive version 3), objective neuropsychological testing, and functional magnetic resonance imaging at baseline and 24 weeks. RESULTS: Compared to CON, EX had a reduced time to complete a processing speed test (trail making test-A) (-14.2 seconds, P < .01; effect size 0.35). Compared to CON, there was no improvement in self-reported cognitive function and effect sizes were small. Interestingly, lack of between-group differences in Stroop behavioral performance was accompanied by functional changes in several brain regions of interest in EX compared to CON at 24 weeks. CONCLUSION: These findings provide preliminary proof-of-concept results for the potential of aerobic exercise to improve cancer-related cognitive impairment and will serve to inform the development of future trials.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".