Dose–response effects of exercise on insulin among colon cancer survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical activity is associated with a lower risk of disease recurrence among colon cancer survivors. The pathways through which physical activity may alter disease outcomes are unknown, but may include changes in metabolic growth factors, such as insulin. Between January 2015 and August 2015, 39 stage I–III colon cancer survivors were randomized to one of the three groups: usual care control, 150 min/week of aerobic exercise (low-dose) and 300 min/week of aerobic exercise (high-dose) for six months. The pre-specified key metabolic growth factor outcome was fasting insulin. Insulin resistance was quantified using the homeostatic model assessment. Mean age was 56.5 ± 10.0 years, 51% had stage III disease, 72% were treated with chemotherapy and the mean time since finishing treatment was 10.9 ± 6.1 months. Over six months, the low-dose group completed 141.5 ± 9.9 min/week of aerobic exercise, and the high-dose group completed 247.2 ± 10.7 min/week of aerobic exercise. Fasting insulin concentrations decreased 7.4 ± 9.4 pmol/L in the control group, 28.0 ± 8.3 pmol/L in the low-dose group and 20.7 ± 9.3 pmol/L in the high-dose group (nonlinear P trend = 0.042). Insulin resistance decreased 0.11 ± 0.20 in the control group, 0.63 ± 0.17 in the low-dose group and 0.43 ± 0.19 in the high-dose group (nonlinear P trend = 0.012). Aerobic exercise reduces insulin concentrations and insulin resistance among patients with stage I–III colon cancer. Prescribing 150 min/week of aerobic exercise may be sufficient for reducing insulin concentrations and insulin resistance, which may partially mediate the relationship between physical activity and colon cancer prognosis.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".