Impact of physical activity in group versus individual physical activity on fatigue in patients with breast cancer: A pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physical activity improves the quality of life of cancer survivors, but whether there is a difference between individual vs. group physical activity is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To compare fatigue at 12 weeks in breast cancer survivors after participation in a program of group vs. individual video-assisted physical activity. METHODS: This was a randomized phase II pilot study carried out in breast cancer survivors at a tertiary breast cancer center. Eligible patients were randomized to individual or group 12-week physical activity program. The primary outcome was fatigue (FACT-F). Aerobic capacity (6-min walk test), muscular strength, and quality-of-life (FACT-G and FACT-B) were assessed. Because of poor accrual, 200 consecutive breast cancer patients were surveyed about their physical activity habits to assess reasons for low recruitment. RESULTS: For all participants (n = 26; n = 12 for group vs. n = 14 for individual), there were some improvement in FACT-F, FACT-G, FACT-B, physical activity level, aerobic capacity, and shoulder strength. Among the 200 patients surveyed, 58% were interested to increase their physical activity level, 15% declared that they were already exercising enough, 9% declared being unable to, 3% declared having no time, and 2% declared having no interest, and other reasons (13%). Among the 200 patients surveyed, 25% preferred in group, 57% preferred alone, and 18% had no preference. CONCLUSION: Low recruitment precluded conclusions about the efficacy of physical activity practiced in group vs. individually, but both groups derived a benefit. Low willingness to change exercising habits could be the biggest barrier to physical activity in breast cancer survivors.
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".