MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4294176559 · doi:10.3389/fonc.2022.957135

Exercise as cancer treatment: A clinical oncology framework for exercise oncology research

2022· article· en· W4294176559 on OpenAlexafffund
Kerry S. Courneya, Christopher M. Booth

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsMedicineDiseaseOncologyInternal medicineCancerPrimary tumorClinical OncologyCancer treatmentMetastasis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exercise has been proposed as a possible cancer treatment; however, there are an infinite number of clinical oncology settings involving diverse cancer types and treatment protocols in which exercise could be tested as a cancer treatment. The primary purpose of this paper is to propose a conceptual framework to organize and guide research on exercise as a cancer treatment across distinct clinical oncology settings. A secondary purpose is to provide an overview of existing exercise research using the proposed framework. The Exercise as Cancer Treatment (EXACT) framework proposes nine distinct clinical oncology scenarios based on tumor/disease status and treatment status at the time of the proposed exercise treatment. In terms of tumor/disease status, the primary tumor has either been surgically removed (primary goal to treat micrometastases), not surgically removed (primary goal to treat the primary tumor), or metastatic disease is present (primary goal to treat metastatic disease). In terms of treatment status, the extant disease has either not been treated yet (treatment naïve), is currently being treated (active treatment), or has previously been treated. These two key clinical oncology variables-tumor/disease status and treatment status-result in nine distinct clinical oncology scenarios in which exercise could be tested as a new cancer treatment: (a) treatment naïve micrometastases, (b) actively treated micrometastases, (c) previously treated micrometastases, (d) treatment naïve primary tumors, (e) actively treated primary tumors, (f) previously treated primary tumors, (g) treatment naïve metastatic disease, (h) actively treated metastatic disease, and (i) previously treated metastatic disease. To date, most preclinical animal studies have examined the effects of exercise on treatment naïve and actively treated primary tumors. Conversely, most observational human studies have examined the associations between exercise and cancer recurrence/survival in patients actively treated or previously treated for micrometastases. Few clinical trials have been conducted in any of these scenarios. For exercise to be integrated into clinical oncology practice as a cancer treatment, it will need to demonstrate benefit in a specific clinical setting. The EXACT framework provides a simple taxonomy for systematically evaluating exercise as a potential cancer treatment across a diverse range of cancer types and treatment protocols.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.779
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.150
GPT teacher head0.515
Teacher spread0.365 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations34
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in OncologySame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207