Systematic review of exercise training in colorectal cancer patients during treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Colorectal cancer surgery results in considerable postoperative morbidity, mortality and reduced quality of life. As many patients will undergo additional (neo)adjuvant therapy, it is imperative that each individual optimize their physical function. To elucidate the potential of exercise in patient optimization, we investigated the evidence for an exercise program before and after surgical treatment in colorectal cancer patients. A systematic review was conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, the guidelines of the Physical Therapy Journal and the PRISMA guidelines. No literature pertaining to exercise training during preoperative neoadjuvant treatment was found. Seven studies, investigating the effects of regular exercise during adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with colorectal cancer or a mixed population, were identified. A small effect (effect size (ES) 0.4) of endurance/interval training and strength training (ES 0.4) was found in two studies conducted in patients with colorectal and gastrointestinal cancer. In five studies that included a mixed population of cancer patients, interval training resulted in a large improvement (ES 1.5; P≤.05). Endurance training alone was found to increase both lower extremity strength and endurance capacity. The effects of strength training in the lower extremity are moderate, whereas, in the upper extremity, the increase is small. There is limited evidence available on exercise training during treatment in colorectal cancer patients. One study concluded exercise therapy may be beneficial for colorectal cancer patients during adjuvant treatment. The possible advantages of training during neoadjuvant treatment may be explored by prehabilitation 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".