Development, implementation, and effects of a cancer center's exercise‐oncology program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: National and international bodies acknowledge the benefit of exercise for people with cancer, yet limited accessibility to related programing remains. Given their involvement in managing the disease, cancer centers can play a central role in delivering exercise-oncology services. The authors developed and implemented a clinically integrated exercise-oncology program at a major cancer center and evaluated its effectiveness and participant experience. METHODS: A hospital-based program with prescribed at-home exercise was developed and accepted referrals over a 42-month period (3.5 years). Implementation was conducted in 2 phases: a pilot phase for women with breast cancer and men with genitourinary cancer and a roll-out phase for all patients with cancer. Enrolled patients were assessed and received an exercise prescription as well as a program manual, resistance bands, and a stability ball from a kinesiologist. Program participation and effectiveness were evaluated up to 48 weeks after the baseline assessment using intention-to-treat analyses. Participants in the roll-out phase were asked to complete a program experience questionnaire at the completion of the 48-week follow-up. RESULTS: In total, 112 participants enrolled in the pilot, and 150 enrolled in the roll-out phase. Program attrition to 48 weeks was 48% and 65% in the pilot and roll-out phases, respectively. In participants who consented to research evaluation of their performance, objective and patient-reported measures of functional capacity improved significantly from baseline in both phases. Participants were highly satisfied with the program. CONCLUSIONS: Despite significant drop-out to program endpoints, our cancer-exercise program demonstrated clinically relevant improvement in functional outcomes and was highly appreciated by participants.
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 | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".