Effect of Physical Activity During Chemotherapy on Cognitive Function in Cancer Survivors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To determine if cancer survivors who perform physical activity (PA) during chemotherapy have improved levels of cognitive function compared to those who do not. Method: E-databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, AMED) were searched from inception to February 4, 2020. Quantitative studies that assessed cognitive outcomes for adults with any cancer type who received chemotherapy concurrent with PA were selected. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane’s RoB 2, ROBINS-I, and Newcastle-Ottawa scales. A meta-analysis was performed using standardized mean difference (SMD). Results: Twenty-two studies (15 randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and 7 non-RCTs) met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis demonstrated that combined resistance and aerobic training had a small yet statistically significant effect on social cognition compared to usual care (SMD 0.23 [95% CI: 0.04, 0.42], p = 0.020). Conclusions: Combined resistance and aerobic exercise may benefit social cognition in cancer survivors undergoing chemotherapy. Due to high risk of bias and low quality of evidence of included studies, we recommend further investigation to support these findings and make specific PA recommendations.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; 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".