A Randomized Trial of Physical Activity in Children and Adolescents with Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a physical activity program (PAP) in children and adolescents with cancer. Methods: children and adolescents with cancer were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the six-month PAP (intervention group) or to the control group. The first evaluation was performed at the end of the PAP (T0 + 6 mo). At T0 + 6 mo, both groups received the six-month PAP with a second evaluation at T0 + 12 mo. The primary outcome was the evolution of exercise capacity measured using the six-minute walk test (6 MWT) at T0 + 6 mo. Secondary outcomes included PAP safety and changes in other physical functions, self-esteem, and quality-of-life parameters. Results: The trial involved 80 children and adolescents (age range 5.0–18.4 years), of whom 41 were assigned to the interventional group and 39 to the control group. Underlying malignancies were leukemia (39%) and a broad range of solid tumors (61%). No adverse events occurred. At T0 + 6 mo, the evolution of the 6 MWT distance (±SEM) was improved in the intervention group vs. the control group (86 ± 12 m vs. 32 ± 6 m, p < 0.001). Several other physical parameters were significantly improved in the intervention group. Global self-esteem and parent-reported quality-of-life were significantly increased in the intervention group. Analysis at T0 + 12 mo showed persistence of the benefits in the intervention group on exercise capacity evolution (115 ± 18 m vs. 49 ± 11 m, p = 0.004) and on most physical and QoL parameters. Conclusion: In children and adolescents with cancer, a physical activity program is safe, improves exercise capacity, and may have physical and psychological benefits.
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) | 0.001 | 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".