MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981263606 · doi:10.1249/mss.0000000000002116

Exercise Guidelines for Cancer Survivors: Consensus Statement from International Multidisciplinary Roundtable

2019· article· en· W2981263606 on OpenAlexaff
Kristin L. Campbell, Kerri M. Winters‐Stone, Joachim Wiskemann, Anne M. May, Anna L. Schwartz, Kerry S. Courneya, David S. Zucker, Charles E. Matthews, Jennifer A. Ligibel, Lynn H. Gerber, Gerwyn Morris, Alpa V. Patel, Trisha F. Hue, Frank M. Perna, Kathryn H. Schmitz

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer-related cognitive impairment studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsQuality of life (healthcare)MedicineCancerCancer survivorGerontologyAnxietyPhysical fitnessAerobic exerciseCancer survivorshipMental healthPhysical therapySurvivorship curvePsychiatryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The number of cancer survivors worldwide is growing, with over 15.5 million cancer survivors in the United States alone-a figure expected to double in the coming decades. Cancer survivors face unique health challenges as a result of their cancer diagnosis and the impact of treatments on their physical and mental well-being. For example, cancer survivors often experience declines in physical functioning and quality of life while facing an increased risk of cancer recurrence and all-cause mortality compared with persons without cancer. The 2010 American College of Sports Medicine Roundtable was among the first reports to conclude that cancer survivors could safely engage in enough exercise training to improve physical fitness and restore physical functioning, enhance quality of life, and mitigate cancer-related fatigue. METHODS: A second Roundtable was convened in 2018 to advance exercise recommendations beyond public health guidelines and toward prescriptive programs specific to cancer type, treatments, and/or outcomes. RESULTS: Overall findings retained the conclusions that exercise training and testing were generally safe for cancer survivors and that every survivor should "avoid inactivity." Enough evidence was available to conclude that specific doses of aerobic, combined aerobic plus resistance training, and/or resistance training could improve common cancer-related health outcomes, including anxiety, depressive symptoms, fatigue, physical functioning, and health-related quality of life. Implications for other outcomes, such as peripheral neuropathy and cognitive functioning, remain uncertain. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed recommendations should serve as a guide for the fitness and health care professional working with cancer survivors. More research is needed to fill remaining gaps in knowledge to better serve cancer survivors, as well as fitness and health care professionals, to improve clinical practice.

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.139

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.006
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0080.006
Research integrity0.0150.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.007

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2,911
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseSame topicCancer-related cognitive impairment studiesFrench-language works237,207