MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3199027842 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/noab180.043

OS10.5.A BrainWear: Longitudinal, objective assessment of physical activity in 42 HGG patients

2021· article· en· W3199027842 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Seema Dadhania, Lillie Pakzad-Shahabi, Sabuj Kanti Mistry, K Le-Calvez, Waqar Saleem, W Mohammed, Matthew Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiobankMedicineAccelerometerPhysical activityLongitudinal studyQuality of life (healthcare)Physical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationComputer sciencePathologyBioinformatics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND In patients with High Grade Glioma (HGG), QoL and physical function decline with progressive disease (PD). Objective assessment of physical functioning is challenging as patients spend most of their time away from the hospital. Wearable technology allows measurement of objective, continuous activity data in a non-obtrusive manner. BrainWear is a phase II feasibility study, collecting longitudinal physical activity (PA) data from patients with primary and secondary brain tumours. MATERIAL AND METHODS All agreed to wear an Axivity AX3 triaxial accelerometer and completed the EORTC QLQ C30 and BN20, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Multidimensional fatigue inventory (MFI) questionnaires. Accelerometers were changed at 14-day intervals, and PRO questionnaires completed at pre-specified study intervals. Age-sex matched controls were identified from the UK Biobank 7-day accelerometer study. Raw accelerometer data was processed using UK Biobank accelerometer software and inclusion of high-quality wear time selected as ≥72 hours of data in a 7-day data collection and data in each 1-hour period of a 24-hour cycle over multiple days. We analysed variation in activity by patient demographics and treatment days. The wilcoxin-signed rank test was used to compare participant activity between radiotherapy treatment days and non-treatment days, mixed effects models were used to evaluate longitudinal changes in activity and we used k-means clustering to characterise clusters of PA behaviours. RESULTS We have collected 3458 days of accelerometer data from 42 HGG patients with a median age of 59, 80% of which has been classified as high quality. Patients >60 years spend more time doing moderate activity compared to those <60 years (52 vs 33 minutes/day, p=0.012), and there are significant differences in mean vector magnitude (17.12 vs 16.85 mg, p=0.013) and walking (91 vs 72 minutes/day) between radiotherapy and non-radiotherapy days. In patients having a 6-week RT course, time spent in daily moderate activity falls 4-fold between week 1 and the second week after RT completion (70 minutes to 16 minutes/day). Comparing HGG patients to healthy controls shows a significant difference in time spent across all activities (p<0.05). K-means clustering analysis shows three distinct clusters, with 87% of HGG patients falling into the very inactive or moderately active groups. CONCLUSION Digital remote health monitoring is feasible and acceptable with 80% of data classified as high-quality wear-time suggesting good patient adherence. Triaxial accelerometer data collection captures objective evidence of a significant reduction in moderate daily activity at the time of expected peak RT side-effects and patients walk almost 30% less on non-RT treatment days. HGG patients show significantly lower levels of activity compared to matched healthy controls.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.337 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuro-OncologySame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207