Exercise for people with cancer: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background This systematic review was completed by the Exercise for People with Cancer Guideline Development Group, a group organized by Cancer Care Ontario’s Program in Evidence-Based Care (pebc). It provides background and guidance for clinicians with respect to exercise for people living with cancer in active and post treatment. It focuses on the benefits of specific types of exercise, pre-screening requirements for new referrals, safety concerns, and delivery models.Methods Using the pebc’s standardized approach, medline and embase were systematically searched for existing guidelines, systematic reviews, and primary literature.Results The search identified two guidelines, eighteen systematic reviews, and twenty-nine randomized controlled trials with relevance to the topic. The present review provides conclusions about the duration, frequency, and intensity of exercise appropriate for people living with cancer.Conclusions The evidence shows that exercise is safe and provides benefit in quality of life and in muscular and aerobic fitness for people with cancer both during and after treatment. The evidence is sufficient to support the promotion of exercise for adults with cancer, and some evidence supports the promotion of exercise in group or supervised settings and for a long period of time to improve quality of life and muscular and aerobic fitness. Exercise at moderate intensities could also be sustainable for longer periods and could encourage exercise to be continued over an individual’s lifetime. It is important that a pre-screening assessment be conducted to evaluate the effects of disease, treatments, and comorbidities.
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 | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".