Effects of high-intensity interval training on fatigue and quality of life in testicular cancer survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Testicular cancer survivors (TCS) are at increased risk of cancer-related fatigue (CRF), psychosocial impairment, and poor mental health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Here, we examine the effects of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in TCS. Secondarily, we explore cardiorespiratory fitness as a mediator of intervention effects and select baseline characteristics as moderators of intervention effects. METHODS: TCS (n = 63) were randomly assigned to 12 weeks of supervised HIIT or usual care (UC). PROs included CRF, depression, anxiety, stress, self-esteem, sleep quality, and HRQoL assessed at baseline, post-intervention, and 3-month follow-up. RESULTS: TCS (median 7 years postdiagnosis) completed 99% of training sessions and achieved 98% of target training intensity. ANCOVA revealed that, compared to UC, HIIT significantly improved post-intervention CRF (p = 0.003), self-esteem (p = 0.029), and multiple HRQoL domains (ps ≤ 0.05). Effects on CRF (p = 0.031) and vitality (p = 0.015) persisted at 3-month follow-up. Cardiorespiratory fitness changes mediated CRF and HRQoL improvements. CRF effects were larger for TCS with an inactive lifestyle, lower fitness, higher testosterone, and clinical fatigue at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: HIIT significantly improves CRF and HRQoL in TCS. Mediation by cardiorespiratory fitness and moderation by clinical characteristics suggests opportunities for targeted exercise interventions to optimise PROs in TCS.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".