ONKOFRAIL: PERSONALIZATION OF A PHYSICAL EXERCISE PROGRAM IN OLDER PATIENTS WITH LYMPHOMA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several authors highlight the importance of including a physical exercise program during and after cancer treatment, based on the positive effects shown by several studies in young patients. However, there is very little evidence on the effects of physical exercise during cancer treatment in older patients with lymphoma. Recommendations of different scientific societies are based on the expert’s opinion and studies with younger patients with non-hematological cancer. Therefore, this is an unknown area and it is a priority to promote research projects in order to generate effective interventions for this population. Different studies in cancer patients have shown that physical exercise reduces loss of functionality, attenuates frailty during cancer treatment, reduces toxicity and improves treatment completion rate. Recent studies have shown that physical exercise during chemotherapy is safe and that it may benefit in reducing toxicity and maintaining physical and mental well-being. For all these reasons, this research study analyzes the role of supervised physical exercise in older people with lymphoma in an innovative way, with the aim of generating new hypotheses that overcome existing limitations and facilitate the introduction of this type of intervention in the health system. For this purpose, a randomized controlled multicenter study has been designed. All patients over 70 years of age diagnosed with lymphoma who require systemic treatment will be invited to participate. The control group will receive the usual care and movement hygiene recommendations, while the intervention group will add an individualized, progressive, moderate-intensity, supervised physical exercise program of 12 weeks duration, with the content described in Figure 1. All eligible patients will be assessed before receiving a systematic treatment and after 12 weeks. The Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) will assess comorbidity, functional capacity, and nutritional status, emotional/cognitive and social status. The evaluation also includes the SPPB test (Short Physical Performance Battery) the Fried Frailty Phenotype, the 8 foot up and go and Steep Ramp Test, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA test), PROs (patient reported outcomes) and the level of physical activity and sedentary behavior measured by accelerometer. The study will also analyze certain biomarkers associated with vulnerability that provide objective information complementary to the clinical assessment and allow a more robust stratification of these patients. This study was approved by the Committee on Drug Research Ethics (CEIm) of the Basque Country (Euskadi). The Trial is ongoing and we have already included 17 patients. The research was funded by: Biodonostia Keyword: ongoing trials No conflicts of interests pertinent to the abstract.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".