Association between physical activity (actigraphy) and symptom burden in advanced cancer patients.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e20560 Background: Recent studies in early cancer and cancer survivors suggest that higher physical activity (PA) scores are associated with better self-reported physical functioning, general well-being, self-esteem, cancer related fatigue (CRF), depression scores and overall survival. However, for advanced cancer patients (ACP), there is very limited research on the association between objective physical activity and symptom burden. Our primary aim was to determine the association between PA (actigraphy) and CRF (Functional Assessment of Cancer illness therapy –Fatigue). We also examined the association between PA and Hospital Anxiety Depression Scores (HADS), Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) and overall survival (OS). Lastly, we explored the factors predictive of poor PA in ACP. Methods: We reviewed baseline patient characteristics and symptoms [CRF (FACIT-F), symptom burden (ESAS), anxiety and depression (HADS)], quality of life (FACT-G), mean daytime activity (actigraphy) and OS data collected from 79 patients who participated in a methylphenidate for fatigue clinical trial (NCT00424099) conducted by our team. We determined the association between PA and symptom severity using spearman correlation, multivariate analysis and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Results: 79 eligible patients were evaluable. The median age was 58 yrs, the most common cancer type was Gastrointestinal (22%) and Lung (22%). PA was significantly associated with (r, p) FACIT-FWB (0.25, 0.03), HADS-A (0.26, P = 0.02), total sleep time (-0.32, 0.004), ESAS shortness of breath (-0.30, 0.008) and age (-0.37, 0.001). However, there was no significant association between PA and CRF (FACIT-F subscale), ESAS SDS, FACT-G, FACT PWB, FACT EWB scores. There was no significant association between median OS in months and lower PA ( lower PA 14.3 vs higher PA 19.4), p = 0.18. Multivariate analysis found that lower PA was significantly associated with worse FACT-FWB (P = 0.037), HADS-A (p = 0.014), ESAS shortness of breath (p = 0.006) scores. Conclusions: Lower PA was independently associated with lower functional well-being, anxiety, and dyspnea in ACP. Further studies are needed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".