A scoping review of studies exploring physical activity among adolescents and young adults diagnosed with cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Physical activity can improve health, functional capacity, and quality of life among children and adults diagnosed with cancer. Physical activity may also offer important benefits to adolescents and young adults diagnosed with cancer (AYAs). We conducted a scoping review to: determine the extent, range, and nature of published studies on physical activity among AYAs; identify knowledge gaps; and provide directions for future research. METHODS: We searched 4 electronic databases for published studies. Two authors independently scanned the titles, abstracts, and full-texts against inclusion criteria: original research with humans, published in an English-language peer-reviewed journal, ≥50% of participants were diagnosed with cancer between the ages of 15 and 39 years, and included at least 1 measure of physical activity behavior. Data were extracted from studies meeting these criteria and subsequently summarized narratively. RESULTS: Our search yielded 4729 articles; 32 met inclusion criteria. These included 18 cross-sectional and 4 longitudinal studies that explored descriptive (ie, sociodemographic or medical), physical, personal/psychological, social, other health behaviors, and/or other factors as antecedents or correlates of physical activity. The remaining 10 were intervention studies that focused on changing physical activity behavior or on testing the effects of physical activity. CONCLUSIONS: We can conclude that physical activity is not well researched among AYAs. More high-quality research adopting longitudinal or intervention study designs that incorporate a range of descriptive, physical, personal/psychological, social, and environmental measures are warranted to better inform the development of behavior change interventions as well as to establish the benefits of physical activity for AYAs.
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 | 0.022 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.033 | 0.033 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".