The Impact of Exercise on Cardiotoxicity in Pediatric Cancer Survivors: A Scoping Review Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Childhood and adolescent cancer survivors treated with anthracyclines and chest-directed radiation therapy have a much higher risk of developing cardiovascular complications into adulthood. Exercise is one intervention that may mitigate some of these adverse treatment-related effects. Nevertheless, efforts to consolidate this evidence are limited, and a review is required to summarize the impact of current exercise interventions on managing cardiac-related side effects of cancer treatments in pediatric cancer survivors.Objective: This scoping review protocol describes the methods used to explore the current literature characterizing exercise interventions and their reported cardiac-related outcomes for managing cardiotoxicity in childhood and adolescent cancer survivors.Methods: Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines for conducting and reporting scoping reviews will be followed. Studies considered for this review must include an exercise intervention with cardiac surveillance conducted at two or more time points. Intervention participants must have received a cancer diagnosis ≤19 years of age and received anthracyclines or chest-directed radiation therapy.Conclusion/Discussion: This scoping review protocol provides extensive details regarding the methods used, will enhance the transparency of reporting, and will improve the quality of the final scoping review manuscript. Outputs from the completed scoping review manuscript will summarize the breadth of literature reporting on exercise interventions used to manage treatment-related cardiotoxicity in childhood and adolescent cancer survivors.
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 | 0.060 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.053 | 0.009 |
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".