Consistent Physical Activity and Future Neurocognitive Problems in Adult Survivors of Childhood Cancers: A Report From the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE To investigate longitudinal associations between physical activity (PA) and neurocognitive problems in adult survivors of childhood cancer. METHODS A total of 12,123 5-year survivors diagnosed between 1970 and 1999 (median [range] age at diagnosis, 7 [0-21] years, time since diagnosis at baseline, 16 [6-30] years) and 720 siblings self-reported PA and neurocognitive problems. PA was collected at baseline, and PA and neurocognitive data were obtained 7 (1-12) years and 12 (9-14) years later. PA consistency was defined as any combination of ≥ 75 minutes of vigorous or 150 minutes of moderate activity per week on all surveys. Multiple linear regressions, conducted separately for CNS and non-CNS survivors, identified associations between PA consistency and neurocognitive outcomes (expected mean, 50; standard deviation [SD], 10). Mediating effects of body mass index (BMI) and chronic health conditions (CHCs) were evaluated. RESULTS Survivors were less likely than siblings to report consistent PA (28.1% v 33.6%) and more likely to report problems in Task Efficiency (T-scores mean ± SD: siblings, 50.0 ± 0.4; CNS, 61.4 ± 0.4; non-CNS, 53.3 ± 0.3), Emotion Regulation (siblings, 51.4 ± 0.4; CNS, 54.5 ± 0.3; non-CNS 53.4 ± 0.2), and Memory (siblings, 50.8 ± 0.4; CNS, 58.9 ± 0.4; non-CNS, 53.5 ± 0.2; all P < .001). Survivors of CNS cancers (52.8 ± 0.3) also reported poorer Organization than siblings (49.9 ± 0.4; P < .001). After adjusting for age at diagnosis, age at questionnaire, emotional distress, and cancer treatment exposures, consistent PA was associated with fewer neurocognitive problems compared with consistent inactivity for both CNS and non-CNS groups (T-score differences ranging from −7.9 to −2.2) and larger neurocognitive improvements over time (−6.0 to −2.5), all P ≤ .01. BMI and severe CHCs partially mediated the PA-neurocognitive associations, but the mediation effects were small (change in β ≤ 0.4). CONCLUSION Adult survivors of childhood cancer who report more consistent PA have fewer neurocognitive problems and larger improvements in these concerns many years after treatment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".