Randomized controlled trial of a behaviour change intervention to increase aerobic and resistance exercise and quality of life in older prostate and breast cancer survivors: the OutPACE trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Physical activity (PA) has been shown to provide numerous benefits for breast and prostate cancer survivors. Purpose: To test the efficacy of an implementation intention intervention on aerobic and resistance training and improving QoL in older (55+) prostate and breast cancer survivors. Methods: Survivors (N=41) were randomly assigned to one of three groups: (1) two-time implementation intention, (2) one-time implementation intention, or (3) control group following baseline assessments. PA, both self-reported and objectively measured, and QoL measures were assessed at baseline, one, and three months post-randomization. Results: Analyses of covariance did not find significant differences in PA behaviours between groups at follow-ups irrespective of PA measure. Breast cancer survivors in the two-time intervention group reported significant improvements on breast cancer subscale at both follow-ups. Conclusion: Although significant differences in PA behaviours were not found, breast cancer survivors reported QoL improvements. The small sample resulted in this study being underpowered to detect small differences in PA behaviour, justifying additional 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 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.008 | 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".