Exercise duRing Active Surveillance for prostatE cancer—the ERASE trial: a study protocol of a phase II randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Active surveillance (AS) is the preferred primary treatment strategy for men with low-risk clinically localised prostate cancer (PCa); however, the majority of these men still receive radical treatment within 10 years due to disease progression and/or fear of cancer progression. Interventions designed to suppress tumour growth, mitigate fear of cancer progression and precondition men for impending radical treatments are an unmet clinical need. Exercise has been shown to delay the progression of prostate tumours in animal models, improve physical and functional health and manage psychological outcomes in cancer patients; however, these outcomes have not been demonstrated in PCa patients undergoing AS. Methods and analysis This phase II randomised controlled trial will randomise 66 men undergoing AS to either an exercise group or a usual care group. The exercise group will perform a 12-week, supervised, high-intensity interval training programme, consisting of 3 sessions/week for 28–40 min/session. The primary outcome will be cardiorespiratory fitness. Secondary outcomes will include immunosurveillance and cancer-related biomarkers, psychosocial outcomes including fear of cancer progression and quality of life and physical function. Exploratory outcomes will include clinical indicators of disease progression. The trial has 80% power to detect a significant between-group difference in VO 2peak of 3.5 mL/kg/min with a two-tailed alpha level <0.05 and a 10% dropout rate. Ethics and dissemination The study has received full ethical approval from the Health Research Ethics Board of Alberta – Cancer Committee (Protocol Number: HREBA.CC-17–0248). The findings of the study will be disseminated through public and scientific channels. Trial registration number NCT03203460 ; Pre-results.
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 | 0.033 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 0.009 |
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".