AEROBIC AND RESISTANCE TRAINING TO REDUCE CANCER-RELATED FATIGUE: EFFICACY IN ONCOGERIATRIC PATIENTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the high prevalence of cancer in the elderly, there is no strong evidence regarding the efficacy of exercise training for reducing debilitating effect of cancer-related fatigue (CRF) and improving quality of life (QoL) in the oncogeriatric population. Hence, the objective of our study is to determine the impact of combined aerobic and resistance training on CRF and QoL in older adults undergoing cancer treatment. A total of 40 older adults (65–80 years) with an ongoing treatment for a curable cancer will be recruited and randomised in two groups: 1) combined training (EX, n=20) and 2) control group (CON, n=20). All variables will be measured before and after 12 weeks of intervention: CRF (FACIT-Fatigue), QoL (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire), physical capacity (Senior Fitness Test) and body composition (fat and lean body mass, DXA). Our preliminary results show that 12 weeks of mixed exercise training alleviated CRF (ΔEX: -5 vs. ΔCON: -15) and the deterioration of global QoL (ΔEX: -16.7; ΔCON: -41.7). Physical functioning remained stable (ΔEX: 0 vs. ΔCON: -20) and cognitive functioning improved (ΔEX: 33.3 vs. ΔCON: 0), both in EX group only. Finally, lean body mass (ΔEX: +0.5 kg; ΔCON: -3.0 kg) and physical capacity improved in EX while it declined in CON. To conclude, our preliminary results show that combined training is feasible and have a positive impact on CRF and physical capacity. Furthermore, our intervention mitigated the reduction of QoL in older adults undergoing cancer therapy.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".