MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366463965 · doi:10.1007/s11764-023-01372-7

Efficacy of exercise training for improving vascular dysfunction in people with cancer: a systematic review with meta-analyses

2023· review· en· W4366463965 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Natalie K. Vear, Yubin Moon, Grégore Iven Mielke, Tina L. Skinner, Jeff S. Coombes, Alexandra McCarthy, Claudia Rose Abbott, Tom G. Bailey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cancer Survivorship · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Queensland
KeywordsMedicinePulse wave velocityArterial stiffnessPhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialMeta-analysisInternal medicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Cancer treatments exert vascular toxic effects that can lead to the development of cardiovascular disease. Exercise training has the potential to prevent or reduce cancer treatment-induced damage to vascular structure and function. This systematic review with meta-analyses aimed to determine the isolated effects of exercise training on vascular outcomes in people with cancer. METHODS: Seven electronic databases were searched on 20 September 2021 to identify randomised controlled trials, quasi-randomised trials, pilot and cohort studies. Included studies implemented a structured exercise intervention and assessed vascular structure and/or function in people during or following cancer treatment. Meta-analyses examined the effects of exercise training on endothelial function (via brachial artery flow-mediated dilation) and arterial stiffness (via pulse wave velocity). Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Quality Assessment tool and modified Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Appraisal tool. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework was used to assess the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: Ten studies (discussed across 11 articles) met the inclusion criteria. Methodological quality of the included studies was moderate (71% average). Exercise improved vascular function when compared to control (standardised mean difference = 0.34, 95% CI (0.01, 0.67); p = 0.044: studies = 5, participants = 171), but not pulse wave velocity (standardised mean difference = - 0.64, 95% CI (- 1.29, 0.02); p = 0.056: studies = 4, participants = 333). The certainty of evidence was moderate for flow-mediated dilation and low for pulse wave velocity. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to usual care, exercise training significantly improves flow-mediated dilation (endothelial function) but not pulse wave analysis, in people treated for cancer. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Exercise may improve vascular health in individuals during and following cancer treatment.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.354
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.195
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cancer SurvivorshipSame topicCardiovascular Health and Disease PreventionFrench-language works237,207