MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Is Heart Rate A Reliable Test Termination Criterion With Individuals Undergoing Chemotherapy For Metastatic Cancer

2023· article· en· W4387054861 on OpenAlexaff
Laurence Poirier, Hugo Parent-Roberge, Adeline Fontvieille, Michel Pavic, Éléonor Riesco

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHeart rateExercise prescriptionExercise intensityIntensity (physics)Perceived exertionInternal medicineAerobic exerciseCardiologyCancerPhysical therapyBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aerobic exercise is increasingly studied in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. However, there can be feasibility and acceptability issues when using maximal cardiopulmonary testingto prescribe intensity. Therefore, submaximal testing is suggested, with predicted % heart rate max (HRmax) or %HR reserve (HRR) and perceived exertion (PE) as stopping criteria. However, the HRmax prediction and the presence of autonomic dysfunction in cancer patients may increase the heterogeneity regarding the intensity at which the submaximal test is stopped, leading to suboptimal exercise prescription. PURPOSE: To assess if using a target HR as a stopping criterion during a submaximal test efficiently translates into a proper intensity during subsequent exercise sessions in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. METHODS: Eleven individuals (57 ± 7 years) undergoing treatments for metastatic cancer performed a modified YMCA (mYMCA) test. Participants were divided into two groups: REACH (n = 5) who reached the target HR (±10 bpm) at the end of mYMCA and No-REACH (n = 6) who terminated the test without reaching it. HR, RPE (Borg CR10 scale), capillary lactate (La-) and power output were collected during the mYMCA and two different exercise sessions (high-intensity interval exercise [HIIE] and moderate-intensity exercise [MICE]). RESULTS: During the last complete stage of the mYMCA, despite the difference in ∆bpm from target HR between groups (REACH: 6 [4] bpm, 74 [12] %HRR; No-REACH: 21 [13] bpm, 60 [14] %HRR; p = 0.002), there was no group difference for PE (REACH: 7 [3], No-REACH: 8 [2]; p = 0.08) and La- (REACH: 5.5 [1.2], No-REACH: 5.5 [4.5]; p = 0.92). Except for PE at the end of MICE (REACH: 3 [2] vs. No-REACH: 5 [1]; p = 0.02), there was no difference between REACH and No-REACH for end-session La- (HIIE: 4.9 [1.7] vs. 4.4 [3.2]; p = 0.37; MICE: 2.8 [1.6] vs. 3.7 [2.1]; p = 0.43) nor for PE at the end of HIIE (5 [4] vs. 6 [6]; p = 0.27). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that using HR as the only stopping criterion for a submaximal test may lead some cancer patients to exceed the targeted submaximal threshold and perform a near-maximal test. These results raise the relevance of combining objective and subjective intensity measures to provide a personalized exercise prescription. Supported by the Sylvain Poissant Foundation.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 designObservational
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicCancer survivorship and care→French-language works237,207→