Exploring rectal cancer patients' motivational response to supervised aerobic exercise during neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Standard treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer involves neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACRT) followed by definitive surgery. Exercise during NACRT may improve outcomes in these patients, however, no study to date has examined their motivation to exercise during NACRT. Purpose: To explore exercise motivation in rectal cancer patients during NACRT. Methods: Patients (N=18) participated in a supervised aerobic exercise program during NACRT. Using the theory of planned behavior, we assessed perceived benefits, enjoyment, support, motivation, and difficulty before and after the intervention. We also assessed patient-reported specific benefits, harms and barriers. Results: Perceived enjoyment (p=0.003) and difficulty (p=0.037) improved from pre-NACRT to post-NACRT. The most frequently cited benefits of the exercise program were improvements in cardiovascular fitness (75 %), quality of life (75%), and self-esteem (65%). The most frequently cited harms of the exercise program were exacerbation of fatigue (31%) and diarrhea (31%). Finally, the most frequently cited barriers to the exercise were side effects of chemoradiotherapy (88%), fatigue (76%), and diarrhea (71%). Conclusions: This pilot study suggests that rectal cancer patients found an aerobic exercise intervention during NACRT to be more enjoyable and less difficult than anticipated. Moreover, rectal cancer patients identified many potential benefits but they also identified potential harms that need to be closely monitored in future interventions. Finally, most of the barriers to the supervised exercise were treatment-related and will need to be addressed if exercise is to be tested and ultimately incorporated into standard care for rectal cancer patients receiving NACRT.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".