Physical Activity and Outcomes in Patients with Stage III Colon Cancer: A Correlative Analysis of Phase III Trial NCCTG N0147 (Alliance)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Prior studies have supported an inverse association between physical activity and colon cancer risk and suggest that higher physical activity may also improve cancer survival. Among participants in a phase III adjuvant trial for stage III colon cancer, we assessed the association of physical activity around the time of cancer diagnosis with subsequent outcomes. Methods: Before treatment arm randomization (FOLFOX or FOLFOX + cetuximab), study participants completed a questionnaire including items regarding usual daily activity level and frequency of participation in recreational physical activity (N = 1,992). Using multivariable Cox models, we calculated HRs for associations of aspects of physical activity with disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: Over follow-up, 505 participants died and 541 experienced a recurrence. Overall, 75% of participants reported recreational physical activity at least several times a month; for participants who reported physical activity at least that often (vs. once a month or less), the HRs for DFS and OS were 0.82 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.69–0.99] and 0.76 (95% CI, 0.63–0.93), respectively. There was no evidence of material effect modification in these associations by patient or tumor attributes, except that physical activity was more strongly inversely associated with OS in patients with stage T3 versus T4 tumors (Pinteraction = 0.03). Conclusions: These findings suggest that higher physical activity around the time of colon cancer diagnosis may be associated with more favorable colon cancer outcomes. Impact: Our findings support further research on whether colon cancer survival may be enhanced by physical activity. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 27(6); 696–703. ©2018 AACR.
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 | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".