Meta-Analysis Aerobic Exercise Improves Quality of Life in Breast Cancer Survivor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Cancer is one of the health problems throughout the world, the increasing mortality rate due to breast cancer is one of them because it is detected at an advanced stage. In 2018 breast cancer was at the top of the list impacting 2,088,849 (11.6%) world women every year and with an incidence of death of 626,679 (6.6%) cases. One category of intervention to improve the quality of life of breast cancer survivors that has developed in recent years is by means of aerobic exercise. This study aims to estimate the magnitude of the effect of aerobic exercise on the quality of life of breast cancer survivors. Subjects and Method : This study was a meta-analysis study with PICO as follows P = breast cancer survivors. I= aerobic exercise. C= no intervention. O= quality of life. The articles used in this study were obtained from several databases, namely PubMed, Science Direct, and Google Scholar. This article was collected for 2 months. The keywords to search for articles were as follows: “breast cancer” OR “ca mammae” OR “carcinoma mammae” OR “mammae cancer”AND aerobic OR “aerobic exercise” AND “quality of life” OR “QOL” AND “RCT” OR “randomized control trial” OR “cluster-randomized control trial”. The articles included in this study are full text articles with a Randomized Controlled Trial study design. Articles were analyzed using the Review Manager 5.3 application. The results of the meta-analysis are reported using the PRISMA flow diagram. Results: There are 9 articles that have been analyzed from California, America, Iran, Kosovo, Spain, England, Canada, Germany, and the Netherlands. Studies show that aerobic exercise intervention improves the quality of life of breast cancer survivors SMD= 0.14; 95% CI= -0.23 to 0.51), and the results were not statistically significant (p= 0.460). Conclusion: Aerobic exercise improves the quality of life of breast cancer survivors. Keywords: aerobic exercise, breast cancer survivors, quality of life Correspondence: Citra Ayuningtiyas. Masters Program in Public Health, Universitas Sebelas Maret, Jl. Ir. Sutami 36A, Surakarta 57126, Central Java, Indonesia. Email: citratiyas2@gmail.com. Mobile: 085345903455. Journal of Epidemiology and Public Health (2022), 07(02): 241-250 https://doi.org/10.26911/jepublichealth.2022.07.02.09 .
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 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 | 0.025 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".