MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2884218058 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021770

Life after breast cancer: moving on, sitting down or standing still? A prospective study of Canadian breast cancer survivors

2018· article· en· W2884218058 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Catherine M. Sabiston, Carsten Wrosch, Angela J. Fong, Jennifer Brunet, Patrick Gaudreau, Jennifer O’Loughlin, Sarkis Meterissian

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of OttawaQueen's UniversityUniversité de MontréalConcordia UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerMoodAffect (linguistics)WorryLongitudinal studyQuality of life (healthcare)Prospective cohort studyDepression (economics)GerontologySedentary lifestyleSittingCancerPhysical therapyPhysical activityPsychiatryAnxietyInternal medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Breast cancer (BC) is associated with serious physical and psychological health sequelae that affect quality and quantity of life. Physical activity (PA) and sedentary behaviour can prevent or diminish these sequelae; yet, little is known about how these lifestyle behaviours change after cancer treatment and if these changes affect post-treatment health. The first aim of this study is to describe natural trends in lifestyle behaviours (ie, PA, sedentary behaviour) in women treated for BC. The second aim is to examine the longitudinal associations between lifestyle behaviour changes and (1) physical health (eg, acute symptoms, chronic conditions, body composition, patient-reported fatigue, pain and functioning), (2) psychological health and illness (eg, depression, stress, affect, post-traumatic growth, cancer worry, mood, body image) and (3) biological functioning (eg, cortisol and C-reactive protein). The third aim is to examine modifiable self-regulation (ie, goal adjustment strategies) and motivation constructs (ie, self-determined regulations) that predict trends in lifestyle behaviours. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: This is a prospective longitudinal study of 201 women treated for BC. Data (eg, surveys, accelerometers, saliva, blood) are collected every 3 months during the first year after women complete systemic treatment for a first diagnosis of BC, and once every year for 4 years thereafter. Data analyses assess trends and changes in PA and sedentary lifestyle behaviours, examine associations between these trends and changes in health outcomes and identify modifiable predictors of PA and sedentary lifestyle behaviours using multilevel modelling. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the University of Toronto (REB# 28180) and has been funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (#186128). Study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, academic conferences, local community-based presentations such as the Canadian Cancer Society and similar organisations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.122

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.006
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.318 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicCancer survivorship and care→French-language works237,207→