QOL-07. RESISTING DECLINES IN FUNCTIONAL FITNESS: PRELIMINARY FINDINGS FROM THE RESIST TRIAL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Few studies have evaluated the efficacy of exercise (EX) in mitigating the functional decline experienced by glioblastoma patients receiving steroids. Here we report preliminary findings on the impact of a tailored ~12-week circuit-based resistance training (CRT) program on functional fitness in glioblastoma patients on treatment. Patient accrual, adherence, and safety was evaluated throughout. Functional status (Short Physical Performance Battery) and grip strength were assessed at baseline and post-study. Depending on the treatment protocol, EX participants completed 3-6 weeks of in-person training followed by 6-9 weeks of home-based, Zoom facilitated training (3-4, 25–30-minute sessions/week). From March 2022 to May 2023, 33 glioblastoma patients were screened and met eligibility criteria, 24 expressed interest, and 15 subsequently agreed to participate (45% accrual). Participants were randomly allocated to either the EX (n = 7) or wait-list control (CON = 8) group. Ten participants (EX = 5; CON = 5) have completed the study with 1 CON ongoing (27% attrition; 2 withdrawn; 2 died) and incomplete fitness data for 1 EX participant. Three serious, unrelated adverse events were recorded, including 2 disease related deaths and 1 hospitalization. Adherence to in-person EX sessions was 96%. While not significant, preliminary efficacy data suggests that EX participants were more likely to maintain or mitigate losses in lower body function (CON (Mchange=-1.0, SD = 2.6); EX (Mchange = 0; SD = 1.3), t(7)=0.943, p > 0.05, d = 0.49) and grip strength (CON (Mchange=-5.94kg, SD = 9.15; EX (Mchange = 0.4kg, SD = 5.75), t(7)=0.269, p > 0.05, d = 0.83). Findings show that glioblastoma patients on active treatment are willing and able to safely engage in CRT. Participants were adherent to in-person CRT sessions, however self-reported home-based CRT was low, with many participants disengaging from EX. While this may be attributed to declining health and worsening fatigue related to ongoing treatments, additional study is needed to explore strategies to improve adherence to home-based EX sessions as in-person sessions are not always feasible.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".