MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Exercise counseling in integrative oncology: Patient characteristics and effects on self-reported symptoms.

2018· article· en· W2889794204 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gabriel Lopez, Carol A Eddy, Yisheng Li, Minxing Chen, Lorenzo Cohen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyDistressBreast cancerCancerInternal medicineClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

10089 Background: Physical activity and exercise have shown benefits for cancer prevention and contribute to improved treatment related outcomes. We reviewed the characteristics of cancer patients referred for physical therapist-led exercise counseling at a comprehensive cancer center and its effects on self-reported symptoms. Methods: Patients presenting for an exercise counseling consultation and follow up encounter at an Integrative Medicine Center outpatient clinic from Feb 2016 to May 2017 completed the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS; 0-10 scale, 10 most severe) pre/post-encounter; a PROMIS 10 global health assessment was also completed within 30 days of each encounter. Exercise counseling was provided by a physical therapist. ESAS individual items and subscales of Physical Distress (PHS), Psychological Distress (PSS), and Global Distress (GDS) were analyzed. We used paired t-tests with a p-value correction (i.e., p < .001) to examine symptoms before and after each encounter. Results: Data were available for 367 participants; 68 (18.5%) had at least one follow up encounter at 56.1 days (mean). Most were female (77.7%), caucasian (66.2%) with breast (43%), gastrointestinal (15.8%), or gynecologic (6.8%) cancer. Highest and most frequently reported (%) symptom scores at baseline included poor sleep (63.2%; 3.55), fatigue (59.9%; 3.19), and poor well-being (62.4%; 3.17). Pre/post change for one encounter was statistically and clinically significant for the ESAS GDS subscale (-3.36, SD 6.54, p < 0.001). ESAS change (n = 40) between baseline and first follow up within 60 days was statistically and clinically significant for improvement in fatigue (-1.35, p = 0.006), GDS (-4.55, p = 0.008), and PHS (-3.15, p = 0.016). PROMIS10 scores (n = 321) at baseline included global health 31.34. For the follow up group (n = 67), significant improvements were observed for mental health (p = 0.015) and global health (p = 0.024), not physical health (p = 0.07). Conclusions: Patients presenting for an exercise consultation had a moderate symptom burden with global health scores lower than the population mean, with improvements observed in global distress, physical distress, and fatigue after one encounter.

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)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.381 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicCancer survivorship and care→French-language works237,207→