MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790205296 · doi:10.1002/pon.4655

A randomized dose‐response trial of aerobic exercise and health‐related quality of life in colon cancer survivors

2018· article· en· W2790205296 on OpenAlexaff
Justin C. Brown, Nevena Damjanov, Kerry S. Courneya, Andrea B. Troxel, Babette S. Zemel, Michael R. Rickels, Bonnie Ky, Andrew D. Rhim, Anil K. Rustgi, Kathryn H. Schmitz

Bibliographic record

VenuePsycho-Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsMedicineAerobic exercisePittsburgh Sleep Quality IndexQuality of life (healthcare)Colorectal cancerPhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialCancerCancer-related fatigueInternal medicineSleep qualityInsomniaPsychiatryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective To examine the dose‐response effects of aerobic exercise on health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) among colon cancer survivors. Methods Thirty‐nine stage I to III colon cancer survivors were randomized to 1 of 3 groups: usual‐care control, 150 min·wk−1 of aerobic exercise (low‐dose) and 300 min·wk−1 of aerobic exercise (high‐dose) for 6 months. HRQoL outcomes included the Short Form (SF)‐36 physical and mental component summary, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy‐Colorectal, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory, Fatigue Symptom Inventory, and North Central Cancer Treatment Group bowel function questionnaire, assessed at baseline and post intervention. The primary hypothesis was that exercise would improve HRQoL outcomes in a dose‐response fashion, such that high‐dose aerobic exercise would yield the largest improvements in HRQoL outcomes. Results Over 6 months, the low‐dose group completed 141 ± 10 min·wk−1 of aerobic exercise, and the high‐dose group completed 247 ± 11 min·wk−1 of aerobic exercise. Over 6 months, exercise improved the physical component summary score of the SF‐36 (Ptrend = 0.002), the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy‐Colorectal (Ptrend = 0.025), the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (Ptrend = 0.049), and the Fatigue Symptom Inventory (Ptrend = 0.045) in a dose‐response fashion. Between‐group standardized mean difference effects sizes for the above‐described findings were small to moderate in magnitude (0.35–0.75). No dose‐response effects were observed for the mental component summary score of the SF‐36, the Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory, or bowel function. Conclusion Higher doses of aerobic exercise, up to 300 min·wk−1, improve multiple HRQoL outcomes among stage I to III colon cancer survivors. These findings provide evidence that aerobic exercise may provide multiple health benefits for colon 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.349 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations109
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsycho-OncologySame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207