MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Effects of a structured exercise program on physical activity and health-related fitness in colon cancer survivors: One year feasibility results from the NCIC CTG CO.21 (CHALLENGE) trial.

2016· article· en· W2591230159 on OpenAlexaffabout
Christopher J. O’Callaghan, Kerry S. Courneya, Janette L. Vardy, Christine M. Friedenreich, Kristin L. Campbell, Harry Prapavessis, Jennifer Crawford, Patti O’Brien, Haryana M. Dhillon, Derek J. Jonker, Neil Chua, Sasha M. Lupichuk, Michael Sanatani, Sharlene Gill, Ralph M. Meyer, Stephen Begbie, Antonino Bonaventura, Matthew Burge, Dongsheng Tu, Christopher M. Booth

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer AgencyOttawa HospitalBaker Hughes (Canada)Western UniversityJuravinski HospitalAlberta Health ServicesQueen's UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiorespiratory fitnessPhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialColorectal cancerMetabolic equivalentPsychological interventionPhysical activityInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

648 Background: There is strong interest in testing lifestyle interventions to improve cancer outcomes, however, the optimal methods for achieving behaviour change in large scale pragmatic trials are unknown. We report the 1 year feasibility results for behaviour change in NCIC CTG CO.21 Colon Health and Life-Long Exercise Change (CHALLENGE) Trial. Methods: Between 2009 and 2014, 273 high risk stage II and III colon cancer survivors who had recently completed chemotherapy at 50 centers in Canada and Australia were randomized to a structured exercise program (SEP n = 136) or health education materials (HEM n = 137). The primary feasibility outcome in an a priordefined interim analysis was a difference between groups of ≥ 5 metabolic equivalent task (MET) hours/week in self-reported physical activity (PA) after at least 250 participants had reached 1 year. Secondary feasibility outcomes included cardiorespiratory fitness, body weight and circumferences, and objective physical functioning. Results: The SEP group reported a mean increase from baseline to 1 year PA of 15.6 MET hours/week vs a mean increase of 5.1 in the HEM group (+10.5 hrs/wk [95% CI = +3.1 to +17.9]; p = 0.002). SEP also improved relative to HEM in mean differences for predicted VO2max (+2.2ml/kg/min; p = 0.068), 6 minute walk (+29m; p < 0.001), 30 second chair stand (+1.6reps; p < 0.001), 8 foot up and go (-0.4s; p = 0.004), and the sit and reach (+2.1cm; p = 0.08). Conclusions: The behaviour change intervention in the CO.21 Trial produced an increase in self-reported PA that exceeded the feasibility criterion for trial continuation, resulted in objective fitness improvements, and is consistent with the amount of PA associated with improved colorectal cancer outcomes in observational studies. Recruitment to CO.21 remains ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT00819208.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.146
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicCancer survivorship and care→French-language works237,207→