MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2979390533 · doi:10.1093/jncics/pkz080

Physical Activity and Mortality in Cancer Survivors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2019· review· en· W2979390533 on OpenAlexaff
Christine M. Friedenreich, Chelsea R. Stone, Winson Y. Cheung, Sandra C. Hayes

Bibliographic record

VenueJNCI Cancer Spectrum · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioColorectal cancerMeta-analysisBreast cancerInternal medicineCancerOncologyConfidence intervalPopulationProportional hazards modelGynecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Recommendations for improved survival after cancer through physical activity (PA) exist, although the evidence is still emerging. Our primary objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the association between prediagnosis and postdiagnosis PA and survival (cancer-specific, all-cause, and cardiovascular disease mortality) for all cancers and by tumor site. Secondary objectives were to examine the associations within population subgroups, by PA domain, and to determine the optimal dose of PA related to survival. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and SportsDiscus databases were searched from inception to November 1, 2018. DerSimonian-Laird random-effects models were used to estimate the summary hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for primary and secondary analyses and to conduct dose-response analyses. RESULTS: Evidence from 136 studies showed improved survival outcomes with highest vs lowest levels of prediagnosis or postdiagnosis total or recreational PA for all-cancers combined (cancer specific mortality: HR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.79 to 0.86, and HR = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.53 to 0.75, respectively) as well as for 11 specific cancer sites. For breast and colorectal cancers, greater reductions were observed for postdiagnosis PA (HR = 0.58-0.63) compared with prediagnosis PA (HR = 0.80-0.86) for cancer-specific and all-cause mortality. Survival benefits through PA were observed in most subgroups (within sex, body mass index, menopausal status, colorectal subtypes, and PA domain) examined. Inverse dose-response relationships between PA and breast cancer-specific and all-cause mortality were observed, with steep reductions in hazards to 10-15 metabolic equivalent hours per week. CONCLUSION: Higher prediagnosis and postdiagnosis levels of PA were associated with improved survival outcomes for at least 11 cancer types, providing support for global promotion of PA guidelines following cancer.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.035
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations454
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJNCI Cancer SpectrumSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207