Synthesizing the literature on physical activity among children and adolescents affected by cancer: evidence for the international Pediatric Oncology Exercise Guidelines (iPOEG)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical activity (PA), including exercise, is safe and beneficial for children and adolescents affected by cancer. Yet, no efforts have been made to collate the breadth of review and experimental articles exploring the effects of PA in this cohort. Thus, a scoping review of review and experimental articles reporting on the effects of PA for children and adolescents affected by cancer was undertaken. Review and experimental articles published in English, summarizing or reporting on the effects of PA interventions for children and adolescents affected by cancer were included. Articles were identified through prior literature, systematic searching, reference list scanning, stakeholder engagement, and a database update. Data were extracted, collated, assessed for quality (reviews) or risk of bias (experimental articles), and summarized narratively. A total of 1,380 articles were identified; 20 review and 69 experimental articles were included. Articles explored PA behavior, physical, psychosocial, cognitive, and "other" outcomes. Improvements, no change, or mixed results were reported across the majority of outcomes explored. Two PA-related adverse events (e.g., a treatable injury, fatigue) were described. Included articles varied greatly in quality and risk of bias. Findings confirm that PA for children and adolescents affected by cancer is a rapidly growing field. More adequately powered research, focused on priority outcomes, adopting appropriate study designs, and adhering to reporting standards is required. Addressing these gaps will enable a better understanding of the effects of PA. Nevertheless, the literature confirms moving more is beneficial and safe for children and adolescents affected by cancer.
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 | 0.080 | 0.277 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.031 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".