MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283259979 · doi:10.1016/j.jaccao.2022.05.003

Validity of Estimated Cardiorespiratory Fitness in Patients With Primary Breast Cancer

2022· article· en· W4283259979 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJACC CardioOncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusKelowna General HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsCardiorespiratory fitnessBreast cancerMedicineVO2 maxTreadmillBody mass indexSports medicinePhysical therapyHeart rateInternal medicineCancerBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Estimated peak oxygen consumption (Vo2peak) is widely used in oncology; however, estimated Vo2peak equations were developed in noncancer settings. The aim of this study was to evaluate the validity of estimated Vo2peak in women with primary breast cancer and to develop oncology-specific estimated Vo2peak equations. Vo2peak was directly measured (TrueOne 2400, Parvo Medics) during 380 cardiopulmonary exercise tests in women previously treated for breast cancer (mean age: 59 ± 10 years; 3.1 ± 1.2 years post-therapy). The American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM), the Fitness Registry and the Importance of Exercise National Database (FRIEND), and heart failure (HF)-FRIEND equations were used to estimate Vo2peak. New equations were developed using patient and peak (Oncpeak) or submaximal (Oncsub) exercise test characteristics. The median differences between measured and estimated Vo2peak were 7.0 mL O2·kg−1·min−1, 3.9 mL O2·kg−1·min−1, and −0.2 mL O2·kg−1·min−1 for ACSM, FRIEND, and HF-FRIEND, respectively. The number of estimated Vo2peak values within ±3.5 mL O2·kg−1·min−1 of the measured values was 70 (18%), 164 (43%), and 306 (81%) for ACSM, FRIEND, and HF-FRIEND, respectively. The Oncpeak and OncSub models included body mass index, age, a history of chemotherapy or radiation, the peak measured heart rate, and the treadmill grade and/or speed. The median differences between measured and estimated Vo2peak were 0.02 mL O2·kg−1·min−1 (Oncpeak) and −0.2 mL O2·kg−1·min−1 (Oncsub). Eighty-six percent (n = 325) and 76% (n = 283) estimated Vo2peak values were within ±3.5 mL O2·kg−1·min−1 of the measured Vo2peak values for Oncpeak and Oncsub, respectively. HF-FRIEND or oncology-specific equations could be applied to estimate Vo2peak in patients previously treated for breast cancer in settings where cardiopulmonary exercise tests are not available. (Trial Comparing the Effects of Linear Versus Nonlinear Aerobic Training in Women With Operable Breast Cancer [EXCITE]; NCT01186367

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.671

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it