Correlates of Aerobic and Strength Exercise in Korean Cancer Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Understanding the prevalence and correlates of exercise in Korean cancer patients is important to improve their health-related fitness and quality of life. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the prevalence and correlates of aerobic and strength exercise in Korean cancer patients. METHODS: Overall, 640 cancer patients from the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2014-2016 were categorized as meeting the exercise guidelines as follows: (a) neither, (b) strength only, (c) aerobic only, or (d) combined. Correlates included demographic, medical, health-related fitness, and quality of life variables. Univariate and stepwise multinomial logistic regression were used for statistical analyses. RESULTS: Over 70% of Korean cancer patients did not meet either exercise guideline. Higher education was associated with being more likely to meet the combined (odds ratio [OR], 4.69; P < .001), aerobic-only (OR, 3.58; P < .001), and strength-only (OR, 1.87; P = .042) guidelines. Higher hand-grip strength (per 10 kg) was associated with being more likely to meet the combined (OR, 1.78; P = .003) and strength-only (OR, 1.73; P < .001) guidelines. Older age (per 10 years) was associated with being less likely to meet the combined (OR, 0.69; P = .009) and aerobic-only (OR, 0.59; P < .001) guidelines and more likely to meet the strength-only guideline (OR, 1.46; P = .004). CONCLUSIONS: Exercise levels are very low among Korean cancer patients and are correlated with age, education, and physical strength. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Oncology nurses in Korea should consider promoting exercise to cancer patients, especially older, less educated, and physically weaker patients.
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) | 0.000 | 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".