The Impact of Exercise on Cardiotoxicity in Pediatric and Adolescent Cancer Survivors: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Childhood and adolescent cancer survivors are disproportionately more likely to develop cardiovascular diseases from the late effects of cardiotoxic therapies (e.g., anthracycline-based chemotherapy and chest-directed radiotherapy). Currently, dexrazoxane is the only approved drug for preventing cancer treatment-related cardiac damage. While animal models highlight the beneficial effects of exercise cancer treatment-related cardiac dysfunction, few clinical studies have been conducted. Thus, the objective of this scoping review was to explore the designs and impact of exercise-based interventions for managing cancer treatment-related cardiac dysfunction in childhood and adolescent cancer survivors. Reviewers used Joanna Briggs Institute's methodology to identify relevant literature. Then, 4616 studies were screened, and three reviewers extracted relevant data from six reports. Reviewers found that exercise interventions to prevent cancer treatment-related cardiac dysfunction in childhood and adolescent cancer survivors vary regarding frequency, intensity, time, and type of exercise intervention. Further, the review suggests that exercise promotes positive effects on managing cancer treatment-related cardiac dysfunction across numerous indices of heart health. However, the few clinical studies employing exercise interventions for childhood and adolescent cancer survivors highlight the necessity for more research in this area.
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 | 0.006 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".