Effects of combined exercise training on the inflammatory profile of older cancer patients treated with systemic therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is a major issue in older cancer patients as it is associated with functional decline and a lower quality of life, and an increased inflammatory activity during cancer therapy is suspected to play a key role in CRF etiology. Combined aerobic and resistance exercise training is known to reduce CRF, and this could be mediated by a protective effect against this increased inflammatory activity. Hence, the main objective was to measure the effect of a 12-week combined exercise training on the inflammatory profile of older cancer patients undergoing systemic therapy. A secondary objective was to verify if there was an association between inflammatory profile and CRF. Methods: Twenty older non-metastatic cancer patients initiating chemotherapy and/or hormone therapy were randomly assigned to 12 weeks of supervised, combined exercise or a control group (static stretching). Primary outcomes were the inflammatory profile, Indoleamine 2,3-deoxygenase activity (KYN/TRP ratio), and CRF (FACIT-F questionnaire). Control outcomes were the fasting nutritional and hormonal blood profiles, body composition (iDXA), physical activity habits (PASE questionnaire), nutritional habits (3-day log), and treatment-related variables. Results: No worsening of the inflammatory profile was observed in both arms of the study after the intervention. No significant change in CRF was observed, although there was a trend for a reduction in the experimental group (p = 0.10). Significant correlations were found at both timepoints between the KYN/TRP ratio and the delay with the previous treatment received (p ≤ 0.03). Conclusion: These results suggest that exercise might have elicited a positive effect on CRF, which was not mediated by the modulation of the pro-inflammatory cytokine profile. However, the decrease in IL-6/IL-10 ratio in the exercise group might reflect a possible anti-inflammatory effect of exercise. Moreover, exploratory analyses suggest that an acute effect of chemotherapy treatments influenced the inflammatory profile measurements, which could explain the absence of change in the fasting inflammatory profile.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".