Physical activity preferences before and after participation in a 6‐month physical activity intervention among women with metastatic breast cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This secondary analysis of the ABLE Trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03148886) aimed to assess physical activity preferences before and after a 6-month physical activity intervention for women recently diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer and to investigate demographic and clinical correlates of these preferences. METHODS: Forty-nine patients participated in the ABLE Trial, a single-arm, unsupervised 6-month physical activity intervention with activity trackers. At baseline and 6 months, physical activity preferences, physical activity level, clinical variables, demographics and social vulnerability were assessed. RESULTS: At baseline, 49 participants were included, among whom 85% were interested in receiving physical activity counselling and 89% were interested in following a physical activity programme designed for metastatic breast cancer. At the end of the study, more participants preferred practising in a community fitness centre (66%) rather than at home (19% vs. 44% at baseline, p = .03). A higher social vulnerability score and not being treated by chemotherapy at baseline were significantly associated with lower desire to receive physical activity counselling (p = .01 and p = .04 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This study will help design future studies within patients with metastatic breast cancer in accordance with their preferences. Designing tailored physical activity interventions according to the participant's preferences may be one key to success for adherence.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".