An Executive Summary of Reports From an International Multidisciplinary Roundtable on Exercise and Cancer: Evidence, Guidelines, and Implementation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical activity can play an important role in cancer prevention and control, but there is a need to update the state of the science to best facilitate dissemination and implementation of evidence into practice. The American College of Sports Medicine convened an International Multidisciplinary Roundtable on Exercise and Cancer to update recommendations based on current evidence on the role of physical activity and exercise in cancer prevention and survivorship. There was strong evidence for a protective effect of physical activity against colon, breast, endometrial, kidney, bladder, esophagus, and stomach cancer; moderate evidence that pre-diagnosis physical activity may reduce risk of dying from breast and colon cancer; and, moderate evidence that higher levels of physical activity post-diagnosis are associated with lower risk of dying from colon, breast, and prostate cancer. For cancer survivors, an exercise prescription for moderate intensity aerobic and/or resistance exercise at least 3 times per week, 30 minutes/sessions, for at least 8-12 weeks may consistently improve common treatment-related symptoms and side effects. To implement this knowledge, an Exercise Is Medicine approach was adapted to the cancer context. Oncology clinicians are asked to: 1) assess current physical activity levels and safety to engage in exercise, 2) advise patients to increase physical activity if not currently reaching recommended levels, and 3) refer individuals to appropriate services. Exercise can play a vital role in prevention and management of cancer. The Roundtable update provides physical therapists with practical, evidence-based information for utilization of exercise as a treatment strategy and models for implementation.
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 | 0.042 | 0.127 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.047 | 0.035 |
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".