Perceptions on the effect of physical activity on quality of life, overall survival, and fatigue in palliative cancer patients.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
198 Background: Physical activity is an important lifestyle recommendation for all patients’ wellbeing. With better cancer treatments and palliative patients living longer, maintaining physical activity is becoming an important survivorship goal, even in the palliative setting. We assessed cancer patient’s perception of the effect of physical activity on their quality of life, overall survival, and fatigue. Methods: In a cross-sectional survey across all cancer sites, patient perception of the effect of physical activity on three outcomes: quality of life, overall survival, and fatigue. Palliative status was determined by chart review and primary oncologist assessments. Regression-based estimates of the odds ratios and confidence intervals (CI) described any differences in perception between palliative and non-palliative patients. Results: Of 1283 patients recruited, 1080 completed the entire survey; median (range) age was 58 (18-98) years; 54% were female; 15% were palliative. Palliative patients were less likely than non-palliative patients to believe that physical activity improved overall survival, with an odds ratio of 0.53 (95%CI 0.34-0.83; P = 0.006). Palliative patients were less likely to perceive that physical activity improved fatigue, with odds ratio 0.68 (95%CI: 0.47-0.97; P = 0.04). Although not statistically significant, palliative patients also perceived less of a positive effect of physical activity on quality of life with an odds ratio of 0.65 (95% CI 0.47-0.97; P = 0.12). Results were similar regardless of whether patients were asked to perceive the effect of physical activity on themselves or in the general cancer patient. Conclusions: Palliative patients were more likely to believe that physical activity did not improve their overall survival and fatigue compared to the curative counterparts. Also, there was no significant difference in the perception of the effect of physical activity on the quality of life among the two groups of cancer survivors. Since palliative patients are living longer, future research can focus on implementing exercise recommendations and following up so the actual benefits can be seen.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".