Aerobic and resistance exercise improves physical fitness, bone health, and quality of life in overweight and obese breast cancer survivors: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Exercise is an effective strategy to improve quality of life and physical fitness in breast cancer survivors; however, few studies have focused on the early survivorship period, minorities, physically inactive and obese women, or tested a combined exercise program and measured bone health. Here, we report the effects of a 16-week aerobic and resistance exercise intervention on patient-reported outcomes, physical fitness, and bone health in ethnically diverse, physically inactive, overweight or obese breast cancer survivors. METHODS: One hundred breast cancer survivors within 6 months of completing adjuvant treatment were assessed at baseline, post-intervention, and 3-month follow-up (exercise group only) for physical fitness, bone mineral density, serum concentrations of bone biomarkers, and quality of life. The exercise intervention consisted of moderate-vigorous (65-85% heart rate maximum) aerobic and resistance exercise thrice weekly for 16 weeks. Differences in mean changes for outcomes were evaluated using mixed-model repeated measure analysis. RESULTS: (p < 0.001), muscular strength (p < 0.001), osteocalcin (p = 0.01), and BSAP (p = 0.001). At 3-month follow-up, all patient-reported outcomes and physical fitness variables remained significantly improved compared to baseline in the exercise group (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: A 16-week combined aerobic and resistance exercise program designed to address metabolic syndrome in ethnically-diverse overweight or obese breast cancer survivors also significantly improved quality of life and physical fitness. Our findings further support the inclusion of supervised clinical exercise programs into breast cancer treatment and care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01140282 as of June 9, 2010.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".