MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Feasibility Of High-intensity Interval Training For Non-muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer During Or After Intravesical Therapy

2023· article· en· W4387052886 on OpenAlexaffabout
Fernanda Z. Arthuso, Adrian Fairey, Normand G. Boulé, Kerry S. Courneya

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBladder cancerRandomized controlled trialHigh-intensity interval trainingUrologyInterval trainingQuality of life (healthcare)Physical therapyInternal medicineCancerNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Standard treatment for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) is tumor resection followed by 6 weekly instillations of chemotherapy or immunotherapy into the bladder (i.e. intravesical therapy). NMIBC and its treatments affect patient functioning and quality of life. High-intensity interval training (HIIT) is feasible, safe, and beneficial for many chronic diseases including cancer, however, no studies have examined HIIT for NMIBC. PURPOSE: To examine the feasibility of HIIT for NMIBC during or after intravesical therapy. METHODS: The Bladder cancer and exeRcise trAining during or after intraVesical thErapy (BRAVE) trial is an ongoing phase II randomized clinical trial in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. NMIBC patients scheduled to receive or who have received intravesical therapy are randomized to either usual care or exercise. The exercise group performs a thrice-weekly, supervised, HIIT program for 12-weeks consisting of 4 intervals of 4 min of high-intensity exercise (75-95% VO2peak) alternated with 3 min recovery intervals (40% VO2peak). Feasibility of HIIT is being evaluated primarily by adherence (attendance and protocol compliance ≥70%), and attrition rates (≤25%). RESULTS: In 18 months of accrual, 308 NMIBC patients were screened for eligibility, 134 (43.5%) were eligible, and 18 (13.4%) were randomized. Ineligible patients were mostly out of town (57.6%) or had medical issues (25.6%). Patients have declined because they were not interested (43.9%) or the travel distance (19.3%). Of the 10 patients randomized to exercise, attendance to the HIIT sessions is 77.8 % (36 sessions, 95%CI: 15.1 to 36.4) and compliance to the HIIT protocol is 98.1%. Reasons for missed sessions were work (34 sessions), complications due to COVID19 (18 sessions), lymphedema (14 sessions), treatment-related side effects (4 sessions), and traveling (2 sessions). Two participants (20%) discontinued the intervention due to lower limb lymphedema possibly exacerbated by exercise (n = 1) and work (n = 1). No serious adverse events occurred during the sessions. CONCLUSION: Preliminary data suggest HIIT is feasible for NMIBC during or after intravesical therapy. Future analyses of the BRAVE trial will report preliminary efficacy of HIIT on patient-reported and health-related fitness outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments→French-language works237,207→