MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Effects Of Exercise Training During Breast Cancer Chemotherapy On Fitness Outcomes At 1-year Follow-up

2019· article· en· W2955536567 on OpenAlexaffabout
Andria R. Morielli, Ki-Yong An, Dong‐Woo Kang, Christine M. Friedenreich, Donald C. McKenzie, Karen A. Gelmon, John R. Mackey, Robert D. Reid, Kerry S. Courneya

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaBC Cancer AgencyUniversity of British ColumbiaAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAerobic exercisePhysical therapyBreast cancerPhysical strengthGuidelinePhysical fitnessRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To determine the effects of different doses and types of exercise during breast cancer chemotherapy on fitness outcomes at 1-year follow-up and to investigate the associations of physical activity during the follow-up period with fitness outcomes. METHODS: The Combined Aerobic and Resistance Exercise (CARE) Trial was a multicenter trial in Canada that randomized 301 breast cancer patients initiating chemotherapy to 3 days/week of supervised exercise consisting of either: (1) a standard dose of 25-30 minutes of aerobic exercise (STAN, n=96), (2) a higher dose of 50-60 minutes of aerobic exercise (HIGH, n=101), or (3) a combined dose of 50-60 minutes of aerobic and resistance exercise (COMB, n=104). At 1-year post-intervention, patients completed objective measures of aerobic fitness, muscular strength, and muscular endurance. Physical activity was collected via questionnaire at 1-year follow-up and patients were categorized as meeting (1) aerobic only, (2) strength only, (3) combined, and (4) neither exercise guideline. RESULTS: We obtained fitness data on 263 (87.4%) patients and self-report data on 284 (94.4%) patients at 1-year follow-up. Analyses of covariance showed that COMB was superior to HIGH for upper body muscular endurance (8.8 reps; p = 0.020); borderline superior to HIGH for lower body muscular strength (5.1 kg; p = 0.05); and borderline superior to STAN for upper body muscular endurance (6.4 reps; p = 0.09). Moreover, meeting the combined exercise guideline at follow-up was associated with: (1) better VO2 peak (2.1 ml/kg/min; p = 0.002); upper body strength (2.8 kg; p = 0.017); and upper body endurance (13.4 reps; p = 0.004) compared to meeting neither guideline, (2) better upper body endurance (8.6 reps; p = 0.026); and lower body endurance (15.2 reps; p = 0.020) compared to meeting the aerobic only guideline and (3) better VO2 peak (1.7 ml/kg/min; p = 0.041); and lower body endurance (20.1 reps; p = 0.036) compared to meeting the strength only guideline. CONCLUSIONS: Performing combined aerobic and strength exercise during breast cancer chemotherapy resulted in longer-term improvements in muscular endurance and strength compared to aerobic exercise alone. Moreover, performing combined aerobic and strength exercise during follow-up was strongly associated with better fitness outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicCancer survivorship and care→French-language works237,207→