Modality‐specific exercise guidelines and quality of life in kidney cancer survivors: A cross‐sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Few exercise oncology trials have compared aerobic with strength exercise or compared combined exercise (ie, aerobic and strength training) with aerobic only or strength only. It is unknown what single or combined exercise modality is optimal for quality of life (QoL) in cancer survivors. The purpose of this study is to estimate the prevalence of meeting the combined and independent aerobic and strength exercise guidelines in kidney cancer survivors (KCS) and determine any associations with QoL. METHODS: One thousand nine hundred eighty-five KCS were identified through a provincial registry in Canada and mailed a survey including exercise and QoL scales. RESULTS: Completed surveys were received from 703 KCS. Only 10.1% of KCS reported meeting the combined exercise guidelines. Analyses of covariance indicated that, for most QoL outcomes (eg, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Fatigue), meeting the combined exercise guideline was superior to meeting either single modality guideline that, in turn, were superior to meeting neither guideline. For the primary outcome of the Trial Outcome Index-Fatigue, meeting the combined exercise guideline was superior to meeting (a) neither guideline (P < 0.001), (b) the strength-only guideline (P = 0.021), and (c) the aerobic-only guideline (P = 0.051). In turn, the aerobic and strength exercise only guidelines were superior to meeting neither guideline (P < 0.001 for aerobic; P = 0.045 for strength) but were not different from each other (P = 0.50). CONCLUSIONS: Meeting the combined exercise guideline has favorable associations with QoL in KCS, however, very few KCS are meeting the combined guideline.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".