MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2977187812 · doi:10.12688/hrbopenres.12925.2

The feasibility of implementing an exercise programme for deconditioned cancer survivors in a national cancer centre: FIXCAS Study

2020· preprint· en· W2977187812 on OpenAlexaff
Kate Devenney, Niamh Murphy, Ronan Ryan, Clíona Grant, John Kennedy, Rustom P. Manecksha, Orla Sheils, Margaret L. McNeely, Juliette Hussey, Gráinne Sheill

Bibliographic record

VenueHRB Open Research · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersIrish Cancer Society
KeywordsCancerPhysical therapyMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Introduction:</ns4:bold> As both the number of cancer survivors and the length of survival time are increasing, long-term health issues related to cancer and its treatment are becoming more prevalent. Research suggests that exercise can mitigate several negative health consequences in cancer survivors and improve physical function and quality of life. Multi-modal exercise interventions have been proposed as a cornerstone for survivorship care. However, studies evaluating exercise programmes within the Irish population are lacking. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Purpose:</ns4:bold> To evaluate the introduction, implementation and acceptability of a multi-modal exercise rehabilitation programme for deconditioned cancer survivors in a real-world, standard practice setting. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Methods and analysis:</ns4:bold> In this single-arm prospective feasibility study, cancer survivors (n=40) will undergo a 10-week multi-modal exercise programme. The study population will comprise of cancer survivors attending outpatient services in an Irish national cancer centre. Participants will be aged 18 or older and have completed treatment with curative intent. Feasibility will be evaluated in terms of recruitment, adherence and compliance to the programme. Secondary outcomes will examine physical function and quality of life measures. In addition, the acceptability of the programme will be assessed through stakeholder feedback. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Ethics and dissemination</ns4:bold> : Ethical approval through the St. James’s Hospital and Tallaght University Hospital Research and Ethics Committee is currently pending. The study results will be used to optimise the intervention content and may serve as the foundation for a larger definitive trial. Results will be disseminated through peer-review journals, congresses and relevant clinical groups. <ns4:bold>Trial registration</ns4:bold> : ClinicalTrials.gov <ns4:ext-link xmlns:ns5="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" ext-link-type="uri" ns5:href="https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04026659">NCT04026659</ns4:ext-link> (19/07/19) </ns4:p>

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.604
Threshold uncertainty score0.791

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
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 head0.466
GPT teacher head0.570
Teacher spread0.104 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHRB Open ResearchSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207