MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Heavy Lifting Strength Training In Head And Neck Cancer Survivors (The Lifting Trial)

2023· article· en· W4387062594 on OpenAlexaff
Stephanie Ntoukas, Margaret L. McNeely, Hadi Seikaly, Daniel A. O’Connell, Kerry S. Courneya

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNerve Injury and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapySquatStrength trainingQuality of life (healthcare)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Despite improvements in surgical neck dissection (ND) procedures, head and neck cancer survivors (HNCS) still experience acute and chronic side effects such as loss of muscular strength, limitations in physical functioning, and fatigue, that impact quality of life (QoL) and return to work. Light-to-moderate intensity strength training (LMST) improves muscular strength, physical functioning, and some side effects in HNCS. Heavy lifting strength training (HLST) may further improve these outcomes, however, it has not been studied in HNCS. The primary aim of the LIFTING trial was to examine the feasibility and safety of a HLST program in HNCS ≥1-year post-surgical neck dissection. METHODS: In this single arm feasibility and safety study, HNCS were asked to complete a twice weekly, 12-week, supervised HLST program, gradually progressing to lifting heavy loads of 80%-90% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) for barbell squat, bench press, and deadlift. Feasibility outcomes included recruitment rate, 1RM completion rate, program adherence, and follow-up assessment rate. The primary efficacy outcomes were changes in upper and lower body strength from baseline to postintervention assessed via reliable 1RM tests. Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used to compare the pre-post changes in efficacy outcomes. RESULTS: Sixteen HNCS were assessed for eligibility. Nine were recruited over an 8-month period during the COVID-19 pandemic. All 9 (100%) successfully completed the baseline1RM tests and progressed to heavy loads at approximately 5-weeks. Seven participants (77.7%) completed all follow-up 1RM tests. Median attendance was 95.8% (range: 71%-100%). Weight lifted increased for squat/leg press (median change: +34 kg; 95% CI: +25 to +47; p = 0.008), bench press (median change: +6 kg; 95% CI: +2 to +10; p = 0.012), and deadlift (median change: +12 kg; 95% CI: +7 to +24; p = 0.012). No adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: HLST may be feasible and safe for HNCS at least 1-year post-ND, and result in significant improvements in muscular strength. Future research should consider additional recruitment strategies and compare HLST to LMST to determine the optimal strength training regimen for this understudied population.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 designRandomized 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseSame topicNerve Injury and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207