Associations between self‐reported physical activity, quality of life, and emotional well‐being in men with prostate cancer on active surveillance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The relationship between physical activity (PA) and quality of life (QOL) relative to active treatment for prostate cancer (PCa) has been well-studied; however, little is known about this relationship during active surveillance (AS). Moreover, whether PA is associated with better emotional well-being (EWB) in men with low-risk PCa requires further investigation. Accordingly, we examined the association between self-reported PA and the average change in QOL and EWB over time during AS. METHODS: A total of 630 men on AS were included in this retrospective, longitudinal study from AS initiation until AS discontinuation. Generalized estimated equations were used to determine the association between self-reported PA (independent variable) and QOL and EWB (dependent variables) over time, adjusting for participants' age. RESULTS: (95%CI) = 1.62 (0.58, 2.67), P = .002) compared to their inactive counterparts. Highly active participants had 55% greater odds of experiencing high EWB relative to inactive participants (OR (95%CI) = 1.55 (1.11, 2.16), P = .010). In men with low EWB at baseline (median = 3 months after diagnosis), the highest levels of PA (>1000 metabolic equivalent-minutes per week) were associated with high EWB over time (OR (95%CI) = 2.17 (1.06, 4.46), P = .034). CONCLUSIONS: These data further support the importance of PA as a supportive care strategy for men on AS. Our findings suggest that engaging in higher volumes of PA post-diagnosis may be beneficial particularly for men exhibiting low emotional well-being early on during AS.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".