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 OpenAlexaff
Meghan Michalski, Kylie Rowed, Jessica A. Lavery, Chaya S. Moskowitz, Catherine Capaci, Guro B. Stene, Elisabeth Edvardsen, Neil D. Eves, Lee W. Jones, Jessica M. Scott

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJACC CardioOncologySame topicCardiovascular and exercise physiologyFrench-language works237,207