MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Feasibility Of High-intensity Interval Training In Men With Prostate Cancer Undergoing Active Surveillance: Erase Trial

2020· article· en· W3041426317 on OpenAlexaffabout
Dong‐Woo Kang, Adrian Fairey, Normand G. Boulé, Catherine J. Field, Stephanie Wharton, Kerry S. Courneya

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHigh-intensity interval trainingRandomized controlled trialProstate cancerPhysical therapyInterval trainingConfidence intervalInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To examine the feasibility of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) in prostate cancer patients on active surveillance from the Exercise duRing Active Surveillance for prostatE cancer (ERASE) trial. METHODS: ERASE is a two-armed, single centre, randomized controlled trial in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Men diagnosed with very low- to favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer undergoing active surveillance are approached via clinic visit or telephone call. Participants are randomized to either the HIIT group or usual care group. The HIIT group performs a 12-week, thrice-weekly, supervised, aerobic HIIT protocol on a treadmill for 28-40 min/session. Work and recovery intervals alternated every 2 minutes with workloads corresponding to 85-95% and 40% VO2peak, respectively. The target sample size is 66 to detect a significant between-group difference in VO2peak of 3.5 ml/kg/min with a two-tailed alpha level of less than 0.05, 80% power, and a 10% drop-out rate. RESULTS: To date, we have recruited from July 2019 to October 2020 with a planned additional 2 months of recruitment. Of 283 patients screened so far, 131 (46%) were eligible, and 43 (33%; mean age 67±7 years) were randomized (22 in the HIIT group; 21 in the usual care group). Ineligible patients were mostly living too far away (47%), too active (22%), or having medical issues (19%). Reasons for eligible patients declining were mostly lack of time (35%), not interested (34%), or lost contact (14%). Of 43 patients randomized so far, 33/35 (94%) have completed postintervention assessments. The reasons for dropout were unwilling to continue in the study and lost contact. Total number of attended sessions is 593/612 (96.9%) with 100% compliance to the HIIT protocol. Reasons for missed sessions were dropout (16 sessions), knee pain (2 sessions), and traveling (1 session). 6 participants in the HIIT group reported aggravation of a previous joint issue, 1 chest discomfort, and 1 light-headedness, all explainable by previous medical history. CONCLUSION: Prostate cancer patients undergoing active surveillance are interested in HIIT and are able to achieve high adherence. Future analyses of ERASE will report the preliminary efficacy of HIIT for improving fitness outcomes, patient-report outcomes, and biomarkers related to cancer progression and survival.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.276 · 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→