An Exploratory Randomized Trial of Physical Therapy for the Treatment of Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a common side effect of taxane treatment and cannot currently be prevented or adequately treated. Physical therapy is often used for neural rehabilitation following injury but has not been evaluated in this patient population. Methods. Single-blind, randomized controlled exploratory study compared standard care to a physical therapy home program (4 visits) throughout adjuvant taxane chemotherapy for stage I-III patients with breast cancer (n = 48). Patient questionnaires and quantitative sensory testing evaluated the treatment effect throughout chemotherapy to 6 months post treatment. Nonrandomized subgroup analysis observed effect of general exercise on sensory preservation comparing those reporting moderate exercise throughout chemotherapy to those that did not exercise regularly. Clinical Trial Registration. clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02239601). Results. The treatment group showed strong trends toward less pain (odds ratio [OR] 0.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.17-1.01; P = .053) and pain decreased over time (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.76-0.94; P = .002). Pain pressure thresholds ( P = .034) and grip dynamometry ( P < .001) were improved in the treatment group. For the nonrandomized subgroup analysis, participants reporting general exercise had preservation of vibration (Left P = .001, Right P = .001) and normal heat pain thresholds (Left P = .021, Right P = .039) compared with more sedentary participants. Conclusion. Physical therapy home program may improve CIPN pain in the upper extremity for patients with breast cancer, and general exercise throughout chemotherapy treatment was observed to have correlated to preservation of sensory function. Further research is required to confirm the impact of a physical therapy home program on CIPN symptoms.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.001 |
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".