MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3205375613 · doi:10.1002/jcsm.12828

Effects and tolerability of exercise therapy modality on cardiorespiratory fitness in lung cancer: a randomized controlled trial

2021· article· en· W3205375613 on OpenAlex
Jessica M. Scott, Samantha M. Thomas, James E. Herndon, Pamela S. Douglas, Anthony F. Yu, Valerie W. Rusch, James Huang, Catherine Capaci, Jenna N. Harrison, Kurtis Stoeckel, Tormod S. Nilsen, Elisabeth Edvardsen, Meghan Michalski, Neil D. Eves, Lee W. Jones

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cachexia Sarcopenia and Muscle · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusKelowna General HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthMemorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
KeywordsMedicineCardiorespiratory fitnessTolerabilityRandomized controlled trialLung cancerPhysical therapyModality (human–computer interaction)Internal medicineIntensive care medicineOncologyAdverse effect

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Poor cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) is a cardinal feature of post‐treatment primary lung cancer. The most effective exercise therapy regimen to improve CRF has not been determined. Methods In this parallel‐group factorial randomized controlled trial, lung cancer survivors with poor CRF (below age–sex sedentary values) were randomly allocated to receive 48 consecutive supervised sessions thrice weekly of (i) aerobic training (AT)—cycle ergometry at 55% to >95% of peak oxygen consumption (VO 2 peak); (ii) resistance training (RT)—lower and upper extremity exercises at 50–85% of maximal strength; (iii) combination training (CT)—AT plus RT; or (iv) stretching attention control (AC) for 16 weeks. The primary endpoint was change in CRF (VO 2 peak, mL O 2 ·kg −1 ·min −1 ). Secondary endpoints were body composition, muscle strength, patient‐reported outcomes, tolerability (relative dose intensity of exercise), and safety. Analysis of covariance determined change in primary and secondary endpoints from baseline to post‐intervention (Week 17) with adjustment for baseline values of the endpoint and other relevant clinical covariates. Results Ninety patients (65 ± 9 years; 66% female) were randomized (AT, n = 24; RT, n = 23; CT, n = 20; and AC, n = 23) of the planned n = 160. No serious adverse events were observed. For the overall cohort, the lost‐to‐follow‐up rate was 10%. Mean attendance was ≥75% in all groups. In intention‐to‐treat analysis, VO 2 peak increased 1.1 mL O 2 ·kg −1 ·min −1 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.0, 2.2, P = 0.04] and 1.4 mL O 2 ·kg −1 ·min −1 (95% CI: 0.2, 2.5, P = 0.02) in AT and CT, respectively, compared with AC. There was no difference in VO 2 peak change between RT and AC (−0.1 mL O 2 ·kg −1 ·min −1 , 95% CI: −1.2, 1.0, P = 0.88). Favourable improvements in maximal strength and body composition were observed in RT and CT groups compared with AT and AC groups ( P s < 0.05). No between‐group changes were observed for any patient‐reported outcomes. Relative dose intensity of exercise was lower in RT and CT compared with AT ( P s < 0.05). Conclusions In the context of a smaller than planned sample size, AT and CT significantly improved VO 2 peak in lung cancer survivors; however, the tolerability‐to‐benefit ratio was superior for AT and hence may be the preferred modality to target impaired CRF in post‐treatment lung cancer survivors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.463

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.283 · 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