Feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a multimodal exercise, nutrition, and palliative care intervention in advanced lung cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Advanced lung cancer patients face significant physical and psychological burden leading to reduced quality of life. Physical activity, nutrition, and palliative care interventions may enhance quality of life, however no study has combined these modalities in a multimodal intervention. Therefore, we assessed the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of an exercise, nutrition, and palliative symptom management intervention to improve quality of life in advanced lung cancer. Methods: Participants received an individually-tailored 12-week intervention featuring in-person group-based exercise classes, at-home physical activity prescription, and nutritional and palliative care consults. Patients reported symptom burden and quality of life pre-/post-class, as well as pre-/post-intervention, along with self-reported physical activity and a physical function assessment. Post-intervention interviews examined participant perspectives. Results: The multimodal program was feasible, with 44% recruitment, 75% class attendance, 89% nutrition and palliative consult attendance, and 85% assessment completion. Participants perceived the intervention as feasible and valuable. Physical activity, symptom burden, and quality of life were maintained, while tiredness decreased significantly. Exercise classes prompted acute clinically meaningful reductions in fatigue, tiredness, depression, pain, and increases in energy and well-being. Conclusion: A multimodal exercise, nutrition, and palliative symptom management intervention is feasible and shows potential benefits on quality of life that warrant further investigation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".