Physical activity (PA) and physical function (PF) in adult cancer survivors (CS).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
6085 Background: The longevity of CS is increasing, underscoring the importance of lifestyle modifications and preventive care, consisting of regular PA and maintenance of PF. Our aims were to 1) compare PA and PF among short-term CS, long-term CS and non-cancer controls (NCC) and 2) identify other clinical factors associated with decreased PA and PF. Methods: We identified CS and NCC from the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). CS were categorized into </=5 (short-term) and >5 years (long-term) based on date of diagnosis. Multivariate weighted regression models were constructed to examine for differences in 28 and 26 measures of PA and PF, respectively, while controlling for age, gender, ethnicity, education, income, and other confounders. We explored specific and general PA domains such as aerobic activity and decline from past activity level as well as PF areas including ADLs, IADLs and mobility. Results: In total, 26,185 subjects were identified: 968 short-term CS, 1,367 long-term CS, and 23,832 NCC. For the entire cohort, the mean age was 50 years, 52% were men, and 50% were white. Comparing across the 3 patient groups, CS were generally older than NCC (60 vs 45 years, p<0.01). In terms of PA, short-term CS reported less general activity compared to 1 year ago (OR 0.58, 95%, CI 0.46-0.73, p<0.01) than long-term CS and NCC. In comparison to NCC, both groups of CS also described less current activity than their baseline from 10 years ago (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.48-0.82, P=0.001 and OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.55-0.83, P=<0.01). There were significant differences among patient groups in several areas of PF (Table). Other factors that were associated with lower PA and PF included advanced age, low education, and low income. Conclusions: PA between CS and NCC were similar, although current activity as compared to that of the preceding year or past decade appears lower in CS, which may reflect their older age. Impairments in several measures of PF were observed among CS, which could impact their quality and quantity of life. [Table: see text]
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".