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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".