The Efficacy of Exercise Interventions in Reducing Side Effects in Young Women with Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to determine the effectiveness of exercise interventions to improve body composition, quality of life, bone mineral density, mental health outcomes, cardiovascular outcomes, fatigue, and physical activity levels in young women with breast cancer. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials was performed using Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and The Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature. Participants were young women (aged 18−55 years) diagnosed with BC. Eight trials met the inclusion criteria and were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool by two reviewers. Meta-analyses found no significant changes on body composition. Narrative analyses demonstrated inconsistent findings of exercise on bone mineral density, fatigue, and psychosocial outcomes. Positive effects were found for quality of life, cardiovascular outcomes, and physical activity levels. Firm conclusions could not be drawn due to the high heterogeneity, low quality, and limited number of articles available using this population. This suggests that further research is needed to address the impact of exercise on the side effects of breast cancer in young women.
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 | 0.012 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.023 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".