41 Does exercise improve progression free survival (PFS) and quality of life (QOL) in patients with glioblastoma? A trial in progress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Glioblastoma is the most common adult malignant glioma, with poor prognosis and adverse neurological sequelae. Physical activity improves outcomes in patients with other cancers, but has not been evaluated in GBM. This prospective, single-arm intervention trial examines feasibility and preliminary efficacy of exercise on PFS, cognition and QOL in newly diagnosed GBM patients. Method: Participants are English-speaking GBM patients scheduled for concurrent chemoradiation at PMH, 18-65 years old, ECOG ≤ 2. The 3-month home-based exercise program includes aerobic and resistance training, tailored to prior fitness level, current physical status, and individual interests. Assessments of physical and neurocognitive functions, mood, fatigue, sleep, and QOL, occur within 2 weeks of starting chemoradiation, and approximately 3, 6, 12, and 18 months later, or until tumor progression. Feasibility will be assessed by accrual, retention, and adherence rates. Outcomes include PFS (RANO criteria), change in cognition (reliable change index method), physical activity and sleep (actigraphy, self-report questionnaires). Time-to-event outcomes will be estimated (Kaplan-Meier), and mixed modelling will explore individual and disease variables that contribute to outcomes. Results: During the first five months of recruitment, 13 of 19 eligible patients consented. Nine completed the exercise program. One patient died after the intervention and none of the others progressed. No exercise-related serious adverse events occurred. Preliminary results will be presented at the meeting. Discussion: Exercise appears feasible for GBM patients. Effects on survival, performance status, cognition, sleep, mood, and QOL are ongoing. Results may guide physical activity recommendations in GBM and generate avenues for translational research.
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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".