Effects of the community-based Wellspring Cancer Exercise Program on functional and psychosocial outcomes in cancer survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose In this study, we examined the effects of a 30-week community-based exercise program on cancer-related fatigue, quality of life, and other health-related outcomes in a sample of adults with mixed cancer diagnoses.Methods This prospective cohort study looked at outcomes for participants involved in the Wellspring Cancer Exercise Program in southern Ontario. The program consisted of an initial phase of two supervised sessions weekly for 10 weeks and a transition phase of one supervised session weekly for the subsequent 20 weeks. Outcomes were measured at baseline and every 10 weeks throughout the intervention, as well as at 16 weeks after program completion.Results During a period of 13 months, 229 of the 355 cancer survivors who enrolled in the exercise program consented to participate in the study. Participants attended 71% of the supervised exercise sessions in the initial phase and 49% in the transition phase. From baseline to the end of the initial phase, significant improvements in cancer-related fatigue, 6-minute walk test, social well-being, systolic blood pressure, balance, and physical activity volume were observed. During the transition phase, health-related quality of life and emotional well-being improved significantly.Conclusions The Wellspring Cancer Exercise Program is associated with clinically meaningful improvements in cancer-related fatigue and functional aerobic capacity. Several other aspects of well-being in cancer survivors also improved for participants in the program. Community-based cancer exercise programs such as the Wellspring Cancer Exercise Program can improve well-being for cancer survivors and can provide an effective option that enhances sustainability and accessibility to exercise services for this population.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".