Effects of exercise dose and type during breast cancer chemotherapy on longer‐term patient‐reported outcomes and health‐related fitness: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Combined Aerobic and Resistance Exercise (CARE) Trial compared different types and doses of exercise performed during breast cancer chemotherapy. Here, we report the longer-term follow-up of patient-reported outcomes, health-related fitness and exercise behavior at 6, 12 and 24 months postintervention. A multicenter trial in Canada randomized 301 breast cancer patients initiating chemotherapy to thrice weekly, supervised exercise consisting of a standard dose of 25-30 min of aerobic exercise (STAN; n = 96), a higher dose of 50-60 min of aerobic exercise (HIGH; n = 101) or a combined dose of 50-60 min of aerobic and resistance exercise (COMB; n = 104) performed for the duration of chemotherapy (median of 17 weeks). Primary outcomes were patient-reported outcomes including quality of life, cancer-related symptoms and psychosocial outcomes. Secondary outcomes were objective health-related fitness (assessed at 12 months only) and self-reported exercise behavior. A total of 269 (89.4%) participants completed patient-reported outcomes at all three follow-up time points and 263 (87.4%) completed the health-related fitness assessment at 12-month follow-up. COMB was significantly superior to (i) STAN for sleep quality at 6-month follow-up (p = 0.027); (ii) HIGH for upper body muscular endurance at 12-month follow-up (p = 0.020); and (iii) HIGH for meeting the resistance exercise guideline at 6-month follow-up (p = 0.006). Moreover, self-reported meeting of the combined exercise guideline during follow-up was significantly associated with better patient-reported outcomes and health-related fitness. Performing combined exercise during and after breast cancer chemotherapy may result in better longer-term patient-reported outcomes and health-related fitness compared to performing aerobic exercise alone.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".