Cancer Patients' Perception of Usefulness of Wearable Exercise Trackers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility and perception of usefulness of wearable trackers in inpatient and outpatient cancer rehabilitation patients. DESIGN: Prospective study. SETTING: Acute inpatient rehabilitation and outpatient clinic at a tertiary cancer center. PARTICIPANTS: Adult cancer patients (N = 100). INTERVENTIONS: Participants were provided with wearable trackers for the duration of the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Survey regarding feasibility (as defined as equal or more than two-thirds of participants reporting use of the wearable tracker) and usefulness of the wearable tracker and Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS-FS) in both inpatient and outpatient populations. Activity minutes, number of steps, heart rate, and sleep data were collected from the wearable tracker. RESULTS: Patients reported the use of a wearable tracker is feasible, with 48/50 (96%) outpatients and 47/50 (94%) inpatients reported wearing the wearable tracker daily and 37/49 (76%) outpatients and 29/50 (58%) inpatients reported that they would continue to wear the wearable tracker after this study. The majority of cancer patients (41/49 [84%] of outpatient and 33/50 [66%] of inpatient patients) reported that the wearable tracker was useful and 41/49 (84%) outpatients and 27/50 (54%) inpatients perceived the wearable tracker as helping to increase physical activity. CONCLUSIONS: The use of wearable trackers in cancer patients is feasible and patients perceive wearable trackers as useful in both the inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation setting. Physical activity in these patients was better in the outpatient population, as expected because of less medical acuity.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".