Breaking Barriers: Could Exercise Supervision Attenuate Kinesiophobia in an Older Cancer Patient?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Kinesiophobia, the fear that movement and physical activity could worsen side effects such as fatigue and pain, is a barrier to exercise in cancer patients. Physical inactivity and deconditioning can lead to functional decline, higher mortality risk and lower quality of life, in older adults, and even more in oncogeriatrics because of a lower physical activity level during cancer treatments. The case: We present the case of an older breast cancer patient recruited in a controlled exercise trial and randomized to the control arm of the study (a 12-week supervised static stretching program). She expressed fear that physical activity might exacerbate some of her cancer-related symptoms during baseline physical capacity assessment (Senior Fitness Test, handgrip strength and maximal lower body strength). After completing the 12-week supervised static stretching program, she exhibited similar and/or larger improvements in many of the physical capacity tests than the mixed exercise intervention group, despite being in the control arm. Conclusions: These observations and physical capacity results have led us to emit the hypothesis that (1) this participantâs baseline physical capacity assessment might have been biased by kinesiophobia and (2) the supervision by exercise physiologist might have mitigated this fear over time. Hence, based on this case, we suggest that kinesiophobia should be measured in future exercise trials and clinical interventions targeting older cancer patients.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".