Supervised Physical Activity Quickly Improves Social Dimension of Quality of Life in Breast Cancer Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objectives of the present study was to evaluate the implementation of the program in real life and the evolution of the quality of life (QoL) in breast cancer patients after 3 months of supervised PA in real life and to determine the factors associated with changes in various QoL dimensions. METHODS: This prospective cohort study was carried out in female patients with breast cancer diagnosed within a maximum of 3 yr. QoL and physical exertion intensity during the supervised physical activity (PA) sessions were assessed by the Quality of Life Questionnaire for Cancer and Borg scale, respectively. Statistical analyses comparing QoL scores between the start and the end of supervised PA program were assessed using paired Student's t -tests. Multivariate analysis was performed by linear regression with only variables with a P value <0.15 in univariate model. RESULTS: A total of 93 patients were included in the analyses. There was a significant improvement of social functioning at T3 (∆ = 11.5; P < 0.001). The improvement of social functioning was significantly and independently associated with the Borg improvement ( β = 2.66 ± 1.31, P = 0.046), chemotherapy ( β = 11.03 ± 5.45, P = 0.046), hormone therapy ( β = -13.91 ± 5.51, P = 0.013), social isolation ( β = -14.81 ± 6.55, P = 0.026), and comorbidities ( β = -15.32 ± 5.59, P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: We observed a real enthusiasm and need among patients for practicing PA supervised by a sport trainer near their home. The increase in the intensity of exercise over time contributes to the improvement of the QoL, especially on the social functioning. These results, consistent with previous literature, reinforce the importance of exercise intensity on many dimensions of QoL. In addition, patients expressed great satisfaction with the supervised program, resulting in a strong desire to maintain long-term PA.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".