MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Feasibility And Preliminary Efficacy Of High-intensity Interval Training During Neaodjuvant Chemoradiotherapy For Rectal Cancer

2020· article· en· W3041043228 on OpenAlexaffabout
Andria R. Morielli, Normand G. Boulé, Nawaid Usmani, Diane Severin, Keith Tankel, Kurian Joseph, Tirath Nijjar, Alysa Fairchild, Kerry S. Courneya

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiorespiratory fitnessPhysical therapyHigh-intensity interval trainingColorectal cancerInterval trainingAdverse effectConfidence intervalRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To assess the feasibility, safety, and preliminary efficacy of a supervised high-intensity interval training (HIIT) program in rectal cancer patients undergoing 5-6 weeks of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACRT). METHODS: Thirty-six rectal cancer patients scheduled to receive NACRT followed by surgery were randomized to either exercise training (n=18) or usual care (n=18) in the Exercise During and After Rectal Cancer Treatment (EXERT) Trial in Edmonton, Alberta. Patients in the exercise group were asked to complete 3 supervised HIIT sessions/week for the duration of NACRT. Feasibility was determined by eligibility rate, recruitment rate, follow-up rate and exercise adherence. Safety was assessed by tracking serious adverse events related to exercise. The primary efficacy outcome was cardiorespiratory fitness (VO2 peak) assessed immediately post-NACRT by a graded exercise test. Secondary efficacy outcomes included functional fitness assessed by the Senior’s Fitness Test. RESULTS: From June 2017 to August 2019, 205 rectal cancer patients were screened, 131 (64%) were eligible, and 36 (27%) were recruited. Follow-up fitness testing post-NACRT was completed in 75% (exercise n=14; control n=13). Reasons for missed fitness testing were medical issues. Median attendance for the supervised HIIT sessions during NACRT was 82%. No serious adverse events were observed, however, 2 patients in the exercise group experienced musculoskeletal events which resulted in 4 missed exercise sessions. Analyses of covariance showed no statistically significant or clinically meaningful difference between groups for the primary outcome of VO2 peak (adjusted between-group mean difference, 0.9 ml/kg/min; 95% CI, -1.6, 3.3; p = 0.47). The 8-foot up-and-go was significantly better in the exercise group post-NACRT (adjusted between group mean difference, -0.4 seconds; 95% CI, -0.7, 0.0, p = 0.031). No other significant group differences in functional fitness were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Supervised HIIT during NACRT for rectal cancer was feasible and safe. Further research is needed, however, to better understand the feasibility of completing fitness testing immediately following NACRT and whether HIIT can produce meaningful improvements in fitness in this challenging clinical setting.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.274 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicCancer survivorship and care→French-language works237,207→