Is light intensity physical activity beneficial for mental health among breast cancer survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite recommendations for cancer survivors to engage in either moderate or vigorous physical activity, cancer survivors report enjoying light intensity physical activity, and have greater intentions to engage in light intensity physical activity. Furthermore, light intensity physical activity may be beneficial for mental health. Many cancer survivors reduce their levels of physical activity during their treatment for cancer and light intensity physical activity may be appropriate to resume physical activity participation post-treatment. The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which light, moderate, and vigorous physical activity predict depressive symptoms (an index of mental health) in breast cancer survivors over 1-year post treatment. Participants (N = 201) were a sample of breast cancer survivors who completed self-report questionnaires and wore an accelerometer for 7 consecutive days (to measure physical activity), on five occasions over 1-year post-treatment. After controlling for age, marital status, breast cancer stage, fruit and vegetable consumption, income, and highest level of education, hierarchical linear modeling showed that light (b=-1.24, p=0.02) and moderate (b=-2.05, p=0.00) intensity physical activity, but not vigorous (b=-0.55, p=0.33) intensity physical activity, predicted depressive symptoms over time. The findings may have implications for physical activity guidelines for cancer survivors as light physical activity may play a role in mitigating depressive symptoms following treatment for breast cancer. Acknowledgments: Canadian Institutes of Health Research
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) | 0.001 | 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".