Feasibility of a multimodal exercise, nutrition, and palliative care intervention in advanced lung cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Advanced lung cancer patients face significant physical and psychological burden leading to reduced physical function and quality of life. Separately, physical activity, nutrition, and palliative symptom management interventions have been shown to improve functioning in this population, however no study has combined all three in a multimodal intervention. Therefore, we assessed the feasibility of a multimodal physical activity, nutrition, and palliative symptom management intervention in advanced lung cancer. METHODS: Participants received an individually tailored 12-week intervention featuring in-person group-based exercise classes, at-home physical activity prescription, behaviour change education, and nutrition and palliative care consultations. Patients reported symptom burden, energy, and fatigue before and after each class. At baseline and post-intervention, symptom burden, quality of life, fatigue, physical activity, dietary intake, and physical function were assessed. Post-intervention interviews examined participant perspectives. RESULTS: The multimodal program was feasible, with 44% (10/23) recruitment, 75% (75/100) class attendance, 89% (8/9) nutrition and palliative consult attendance, and 85% (17/20) assessment completion. Of ten participants, 70% (7/10) completed the post-intervention follow-up. Participants perceived the intervention as feasible and valuable. Physical activity, symptom burden, and quality of life were maintained, while tiredness decreased significantly. Exercise classes prompted acute clinically meaningful reductions in fatigue, tiredness, depression, pain, and increases in energy and well-being. CONCLUSION: A multimodal physical activity, nutrition, and palliative symptom management intervention is feasible and shows potential benefits on quality of life that warrant further investigation in a larger cohort trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04575831 , Registered 05 October 2020 - Retrospectively registered.
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".