The CADENCE pilot trial – Promoting physical activity in bladder cancer survivors: A protocol paper
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Participation in physical activity has been found to be beneficial for mental and physical health outcomes among cancer survivors. However, to date no intervention exists specifically to promote physical activity among bladder cancer survivors. In light of this knowledge a home-based exercise intervention was co-created for those recently diagnosed with bladder cancer. AIM: The aim of the present study, financially supported by Action Bladder Cancer UK [1], is to pilot the home-based exercise intervention tailored specifically for bladder cancer survivors (i.e. from the point of diagnosis) to improve physical and mental health outcomes (during treatment and beyond) in this population. METHODS: This study will use a randomised controlled trial design. Arm one will consists of the 14 week home-based exercise intervention and arm two usual care (15 participants will be randomised to each arm). Baseline data collection will take place shortly after clinical diagnosis of bladder cancer, and follow-up approximately 7 weeks and then again approximately 14 weeks after commencement of the intervention. At each data collection point data will be collected from participants relating to demographics, physical and mental health. Participants will aslo be asked to wear an Actigraph Accelerometer at each data collection point for seven consecutive days. Immediately after baseline data collection participants in the intervention arm will be given the home-based exercise booklet. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained for the present study via The London- City and East Research Ethics Committee (ID:291676). Results of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and scientific presentations.
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.
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 | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it