Physical activity and fitness in women with metastatic breast cancer.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
136 Background: Women with metastatic breast cancer may survive for many years after disease onset, and there is little published evidence on their habitual levels of physical activity. The aim of this study was to investigate differences in physical activity levels and physical fitness between women with and without metastatic breast cancer. Methods: Seventy-one women with metastatic breast cancer (METS) aged 57.7 ± 9.5 y and 2.9 ± 3.1 y after disease onset, and 71 healthy controls (CONTROLS) aged 55.0 ± 9.4 y participated. Of those with metastatic disease, 27% had metastases in bone only, 35% in viscera only and 38% in both bone and viscera. Strength was measured using hand and leg dynamometry, aerobic fitness using the Modified Canadian Aerobic Fitness Test, and fatigue with the FACT-Fatigue questionnaire. Participants wore a SenseWear physical activity armband over 6 days, and the average steps taken per day over 5 of these days, where there was a minimum wear time of 8 hours per day, was derived. Results: METS possessed lower aerobic fitness than CONTROLS (25.3 ± 5.4 versus 31.9 ± 6.1 ml·kg·min-1 respectively; p<0.01). METS were significantly weaker than CONTROLS. Lower limb strength for the METS and CONTROLS was 53.8 ± 23.7 versus 76.0 ± 27.4 kg and handgrip strength was 26.6 ± 6.0 versus 30.2 ± 6.4 kg. METS were also significantly less active, attaining only 57% of the daily step counts of CONTROLS. Fatigue was significantly higher in women with metastatic cancer compared to their healthy counterparts (38.0 ± 9.8 versus 46.3 ± 4.6; p<0.01). Correlation between fatigue with average steps per day (r=0.46), handgrip strength (r=0.29) and leg strength (r=0.26) was low in the METS group. Conclusions: Women living in the community with metastatic breast cancer are weaker, have lower aerobic fitness, and are relatively inactive compared to their healthy counterparts. Increased fatigue in these women is poorly associated with their decreased physical activity levels, hand and lower limb strength. Women with metastatic breast cancer may benefit from a program directed at improving their strength and fitness. Acknowledgements: Funded by National Breast Cancer Foundation, Australia.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".