MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effectiveness of Oncologist-Referred Exercise and Healthy Eating Programming as a Part of Supportive Adjuvant Care for Early Breast Cancer

2017· article· en· W2763843183 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Oncologist · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer AgencyUniversity of British Columbia
FundersBC Cancer AgencyCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyBreast cancerQuality of life (healthcare)ReferralAdverse effectRandomized controlled trialAerobic exerciseClinical trialCancerAdjuvant therapyInternal medicineFamily medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Randomized trials have established efficacy of supervised exercise training during chemotherapy for breast cancer for numerous health outcomes. The purpose of this study was to assess reach, effectiveness, maintenance, and implementation of an evidence-based exercise and healthy eating program offered within an adjuvant care setting. SUBJECTS, MATERIALS, AND METHODS: Women receiving adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer were given a prescription by their oncologist to participate in the Nutrition and Exercise during Adjuvant Treatment (NExT) program. The NExT program consisted of supervised, moderate-intensity, aerobic and resistance exercise three times a week during adjuvant therapy, followed by a step-down in supervised sessions per week for 20 additional weeks, plus one group-based healthy eating session. Usual moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were assessed by questionnaire at baseline, program completion, and one year later, along with measures of satisfaction and safety. RESULTS: < .001) were significantly higher than baseline. Exercise adherence was 60% ± 26% to three sessions per week during treatment. No major adverse events occurred and injury prevalence did not change relative to baseline. Participants were highly satisfied. CONCLUSION: This oncologist-referred exercise and healthy eating supportive-care program for breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy was safe, successful in reaching oncologists and patients, and effective for improving MVPA and maintaining HRQoL. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Despite evidence that exercise is both safe and efficacious at improving physical fitness, quality of life, and treatment side effects for individuals with cancer, lifestyle programming is not offered as standard of cancer care. This study describes an oncologist-referred, evidence-based exercise and healthy eating program offered in collaboration with a university as supportive care to women with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy. The program was well received by oncologists and patients, safe, and relatively inexpensive to operate. Importantly, there was a significant positive impact on physical activity levels and health-related quality of life lasting for 2 years after initiation of 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.515
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.339 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it