The feasibility of implementing an exercise programme for deconditioned cancer survivors in a national cancer centre: FIXCAS Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: As both the number of cancer survivors and the length of survival time are increasing, long-term health issues related to cancer and its treatment are becoming more prevalent. Research suggests that exercise can mitigate several negative health consequences in cancer survivors and improve physical function and quality of life. Multi-modal exercise interventions have been proposed as a cornerstone for survivorship care. However, studies evaluating exercise programmes within the Irish population are lacking. Purpose: To evaluate the introduction, implementation and acceptability of a multi-modal exercise rehabilitation programme for deconditioned cancer survivors in a real-world, standard practice setting. Methods and analysis: In this single-arm prospective feasibility study, cancer survivors (n=40) will undergo a 10-week multi-modal exercise programme. The study population will comprise of cancer survivors attending outpatient services in an Irish national cancer centre. Participants will be aged 18 or older and have completed treatment with curative intent. Feasibility will be evaluated in terms of recruitment, adherence and compliance to the programme. Secondary outcomes will examine physical function and quality of life measures. In addition, the acceptability of the programme will be assessed through patient feedback. Ethics and dissemination : Ethical approval through the St. James’s Hospital and Tallaght University Hospital Research and Ethics Committee is currently pending. The study results will be used to optimise the intervention content and may serve as the foundation for a larger definitive trial. Results will be disseminated through peer-review journals, congresses and relevant clinical groups. Trial registration : ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04026659 (19/07/19)
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".