Exercise for individuals with bone metastases: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Exercise has the potential to improve physical function and quality of life in individuals with bone metastases but is often avoided due to safety concerns. This systematic review summarizes the safety, feasibility and efficacy of exercise in controlled trials that include individuals with bone metastases. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, Pubmed, CINAHL, PEDro and CENTRAL databases were searched to July 16, 2020. RESULTS: A total of 17 trials were included incorporating aerobic exercise, resistance exercise or soccer interventions. Few (n = 4, 0.5%) serious adverse events were attributed to exercise participation, with none related to bone metastases. Mixed efficacy results were found, with exercise eliciting positive changes or no change. The majority of trials included an element of supervised exercise instruction (n = 16, 94%) and were delivered by qualified exercise professionals (n = 13, 76%). CONCLUSIONS: Exercise appears safe and feasible for individuals with bone metastases when it includes an element of supervised exercise instruction.
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 | 0.008 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.033 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".