A Review on the Role of Exercise Training to Prevent a Decline in Cardiorespiratory Fitness and Cardiac Function in Breast Cancer Survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Improvements in diagnosis and treatment mean that the long-term health of breast cancer survivors (BCS) is increasingly dictated by cardiovascular comorbidities. This is partly a consequence of exposure to cardiotoxic therapies, which result in cardiac dysfunction and decreased cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF). Exercise training (ExT) is a key therapeutic strategy for secondary prevention and increasing CRF in adults with established cardiovascular disease. Exercise-based cardio-oncology rehabilitation (CORE) has been proposed as an emerging strategy to address CRF and cardiac impairment in BCS. This review aims to (1) provide an overview of the impact of breast cancer therapy on CRF; (2) provide an up-to-date summary of the effects of ExT on CRF and cardiac function in BCS undergoing cardiotoxic therapy; and (3) discuss how traditional ExT approaches can be adapted for BCS undergoing therapy. REVIEW METHODS: A literature review was performed based on an intensive literature search for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, randomized and non-randomized controlled trials and single-arm trials investigating the impact of exercise training or cardiac rehabilitation on CRF and/or cardiac function in BCS who are undergoing or have completed cardiotoxic cancer therapy. SUMMARY: Overall, current evidence suggests that ExT induces clinically meaningful benefits for CRF in BCS during and after therapy. There is also emerging evidence that ExT can improve peak exercise measures of cardiac function; however, there is a need for further research to understand how to adapt these effective ExT approaches into clinical CORE-based settings.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".