Feasibility and preliminary results of A Lifestyle Intervention via Email (ALIVE) in minority breast cancer survivors.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e12573 Background: Prior data have indicated that minority breast cancer survivors are receptive to participating in lifestyle interventions delivered via email or the Web. In this study, we examined the feasibility and preliminary results of A Lifestyle Intervention via Email (ALIVE) in a sample of racial and ethnic minority cancer survivors. Methods: Survivors (Mean age = 52, 83% African American) were recruited and randomized to either a 3-month physical activity or a dietary condition. Descriptive statistics and mixed-effects models were computed to examine the behavioral and evaluation outcomes. Results: Forty-four of 71 survivors who participated in the baseline assessment completed the study. Survivors in the physical activity condition compared to the diet condition made greater improvements in leisure time physical activity (+272 vs. +120 Metabolic equivalent minutes per week; P < 0.01) and greater reductions in sedentary time (-304 vs. -59 minutes/week; P < 0.01). No significant time-by-group interactions were observed for our diet variables; however, positive trends among survivors in fruit and vegetables (+0.7 cup servings/day, P < 0.01) were observed in the dietary condition. Feasibility data from survivors indicated that most survivors would recommend ALIVE to other cancer survivors (97%), were satisfied with ALIVE (82%), and felt that ALIVE was effective (73%). Survivors expressed concerns about the automated calls and functionality of the ALIVE e-mails. Conclusions: ALIVE appears to be feasible for racial and ethnic minority cancer survivors and shows promising results for implementation in larger and ethnically diverse cohorts. Functionality changes are warranted to boost adherence rates. Clinical trial information: NCT02722850.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".