A Pilot Randomized, Controlled Trial of a Wall Climbing Intervention for Gynecologic Cancer Survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To examine the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of an eight-week supervised climbing intervention for gynecologic cancer survivors (GCSs). . DESIGN: A pilot randomized, controlled trial. . SETTING: The Wilson Climbing Center in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. . SAMPLE: 35 GCSs who had completed cancer therapy. . METHODS: GCSs were randomized to an eight-week (16 session) supervised wall climbing intervention (WCI) (n = 24) or usual care (UC) (n = 11). . MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Feasibility outcomes included recruitment rate, adherence rate, skill performance, and safety. Preliminary efficacy outcomes were objective health-related and functional fitness assessed before and after the eight-week intervention using the Senior Fitness Test. . FINDINGS: Median adherence to the WCI was 13.5 of 16 sessions. Most GCSs were proficient on 16 of 24 skill assessment items. No serious adverse events were reported. Based on intention-to-treat analyses, the WCI group was superior to the UC group for the 6-minute walk, 30-second chair stand, 30-second arm curls, sit and reach, 8-foot up-and-go, grip strength-right, and grip strength-left assessments. . CONCLUSIONS: The Gynecologic Cancer Survivors Wall Climbing for Total Health (GROWTH) Trial demonstrated that an eight-week supervised WCI was safe, feasible, and improved functional fitness in GCSs. Phase II and III trials are warranted to further establish the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of WCIs in cancer survivors. . IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Oncology nurses may consider a climbing wall as an alternative type of physical activity for improving functional fitness in GCSs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".