Feasibility and Health Benefits of an Individualized Physical Activity Intervention in Women With Metastatic Breast Cancer: Intervention Study (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND There is limited knowledge regarding the potential benefits of physical activity in patients with metastatic breast cancer. OBJECTIVE The Advanced stage Breast cancer and Lifestyle Exercise (ABLE) Trial aimed to assess the feasibility of a physical activity intervention in women with metastatic breast cancer and to explore the effects of physical activity on functional, psychological, and clinical parameters. METHODS The ABLE Trial was a single-arm, 6-month intervention study with a home-based, unsupervised, and personalized walking program using an activity tracker. At baseline and 6 months, we assessed anthropometrics, functional fitness, physical activity level, sedentary behavior, quality of life, fatigue, and tumor progression. Paired proportions were compared using the McNemar test and changes of parameters during the intervention were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, the Mann-Whitney test, and Spearman rank correlations. RESULTS Overall, 49 participants (mean age 55 years; recruitment rate 94%) were enrolled and 96% adhered to the exercise prescription (attrition rate 2%). Statistically significant improvements in the 6-minute walking distance test (+7%, P<.001) and isometric quadriceps strength (+22%, P<.001), as well as decreases in body mass index (-2.5%, P=.03) and hip circumference (-4.0%, P<.001) were observed at 6 months. Quality of life remained stable and a nonstatistically significant decrease (-16%, P=.07) in fatigue was observed. CONCLUSIONS The high recruitment and adherence rates suggest the willingness of patients with metastatic breast cancer to participate in a physical activity program. The beneficial outcomes regarding physical fitness and anthropometry of this unsupervised physical activity program may encourage these patients to maintain a physically active lifestyle. Future randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes are warranted. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03148886; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03148886 INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT RR2-10.2196/10487
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".