Characterising pragmatic exercise interventions to reduce cognitive impairment in cancer survivors: A scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The objective of this scoping review is to identify the characteristics of pragmatic exercise interventions aimed to reduce cognitive impairment in cancer survivors, and their effectiveness in reducing this impairment and maintaining high adherence.Introduction: Cognitive impairment (CI) is a particularly troublesome side-effect of cancer treatment that has been suggested to decrease following exercise interventions. Most existing research consists of randomized control trials, which often lack external validity. Pragmatic interventions fill this gap. Some pragmatic trials that provide real-world evidence, however, struggle to maintain strong participant adherence. Thus, examining characteristics of pragmatic interventions with high levels of adherence may be beneficial in improving overall adherence in future pragmatic trials on this topic.Inclusion criteria: This review will examine literature with cancer survivors who are partaking in pragmatic exercise programs. Specifically, literature exploring the effects of pragmatic exercise interventions in decreasing cancer survivors’ CI will be examined, with no limits to intervention mode, frequency, or duration. “Cancer survivor” will be defined as any individual with a cancer diagnosis, at any point along the survivorship continuum.Methods: A comprehensive search strategy was developed in accordance with JBI methodology to retrieve relevant sources. Databases to be reviewed from inception to present will include CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, SPORTDiscus, Scopus, and PsychInfo. Two independent screeners will examine titles and abstracts as well as full texts of relevant sources. The results of the search and the study inclusion process will be reported in full in a PRISMA-ScR flow diagram. The results will be presented narratively, using appropriate tables and figures.
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 | 0.100 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.060 | 0.013 |
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".