ACE-Neuro: A tailored exercise oncology program for neuro-oncology patients – Study protocol
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Patients with primary brain tumours (i.e., neuro-oncology patients) lack access to exercise oncology and wellness resources. The purpose of the Alberta Cancer Exercise - Neuro-Oncology (ACE-Neuro) study is to assess the feasibility of a tailored neuro-oncology exercise program for patients across Alberta, Canada. The primary outcome is to assess the feasibility of ACE-Neuro. The secondary outcome is to examine preliminary effectiveness of ACE-Neuro on patient-reported outcomes and functional fitness. Methods: Neuro-oncology patients with a malignant or benign primary brain tumour that are pre, on, or completed treatment, are >18 years, and able to consent in English are eligible to participate in the study. Following referral from the clinical team to cancer rehabilitation and the study team, participants are triaged to determine their appropriateness for ACE-Neuro and other cancer rehabilitation services (including physiatry, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, and exercise physiology). In ACE-Neuro, participants complete a tailored 12-week exercise program with pre-post assessments of patient-reported outcomes and functional fitness, and objective physical activity tracked across the 12-week program. ACE-Neuro includes individual and group-based exercise sessions, as well as health coaching. Conclusion: We are supporting ACE-Neuro implementation into clinical cancer care, with assessment of needs enabling a tailored exercise prescription.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it