Relationships between Obesity, Exercise Preferences, and Related Social Cognitive Theory Variables among Breast Cancer Survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breast cancer survivors with obesity have an increased risk of cancer recurrence, second malignancy, and comorbidities. Though physical activity (PA) interventions are needed, investigation of the relationships between obesity and factors influencing PA program aspects among cancer survivors remain understudied. Thus, we conducted a cross-sectional study examining associations amongst baseline body mass index (BMI), PA program preferences, PA, cardiorespiratory fitness, and related social cognitive theory variables (self-efficacy, exercise barriers interference, social support, positive and negative outcome expectations) from a randomized controlled PA trial with 320 post-treatment breast cancer survivors. BMI was significantly correlated with exercise barriers interference (r = 0.131, p = 0.019). Higher BMI was significantly associated with preference to exercise at a facility (p = 0.038), lower cardiorespiratory fitness (p < 0.001), lower walking self-efficacy (p < 0.001), and higher negative outcome expectations (p = 0.024), independent of covariates (comorbidity score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index score, income, race, education). Those with class I/II obesity reported a higher negative outcome expectations score compared with class III. Location, walking self-efficacy, barriers, negative outcome expectations, and fitness should be considered when designing future PA programs among breast cancer survivors with obesity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".