MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3008227618 · doi:10.1093/ptj/pzz090

The Effect of Exercise on Cancer-Related Cognitive Impairment and Applications for Physical Therapy: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

2019· review· en· W3008227618 on OpenAlexaff
Kristin L. Campbell, Kendra Zadravec, Kelcey A. Bland, Elizabeth Chesley, Florian Wolf, Michelle C. Janelsins

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Therapy · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer-related cognitive impairment studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialCINAHLMedicinePhysical therapyCognitionMeta-analysisAerobic exerciseNeuropsychologyMEDLINEBreast cancerPhysical medicine and rehabilitationCancerPsychiatryInternal medicinePsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cancer-related cognitive impairment (CRCI), often called "chemo-brain" or "chemo-fog," is a common side effect among adults with cancer, which can persist well after treatment completion. Accumulating evidence demonstrates exercise can improve cognitive function in healthy older adults and adults with cognitive impairments, suggesting exercise may play a role in managing CRCI. PURPOSE: The purpose was to perform a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to understand the effect of exercise on CRCI. DATA SOURCES: Relevant literature was retrieved from CINAHL, Medline (Ovid), and EMBASE. STUDY SELECTION: Eligible articles were RCTs that prescribed aerobic, resistance, combined aerobic/resistance, or mind-body (eg, yoga or Qigong) exercise during or following cancer treatment and included cognitive function outcome measures. DATA EXTRACTION: Descriptive information and Cohen d effect sizes were directly extracted or calculated for included trials. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty-nine trials were included in the final analysis. A statistically significant effect of exercise on self-reported cognitive function, both during and postadjuvant treatment, was reported in 12 trials (41%) (Cohen d range: 0.24-1.14), most commonly using the EORTC QLQ-C30. Ten trials (34%) performed neuropsychological testing to evaluate cognitive function; however, only 3 trials in women with breast cancer reported a significant effect of exercise (Cohen d range: 0.41-1.47). LIMITATIONS: Few RCTs to date have evaluated the effect of exercise on CRCI as a primary outcome. Twenty-six trials (90%) in this review evaluated CRCI as secondary analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence supporting exercise as a strategy to address CRCI is limited. Future research evaluating CRCI as a primary outcome, including self-reported and objective measures, is needed to confirm the possible role of exercise in preventing and managing cognitive impairments in adults with 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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.079
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.079
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.014
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.370 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
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

Citations167
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical TherapySame topicCancer-related cognitive impairment studiesFrench-language works237,207