Evaluating a Remotely Delivered Cardio-Oncology Rehabilitation Intervention for Patients With Breast Cancer (REMOTE-COR-B): Protocol for a Single-Arm Feasibility Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Exercise rehabilitation is a promising strategy for reducing cardiovascular disease risk among patients with breast cancer. However, the evidence is primarily derived from programs based at exercise centers with in-person supervised delivery. Conversely, most patients report a preference for home-based rehabilitation. As such, there is a clear need to explore strategies that can provide real-time supervision and coaching while addressing consumer preferences. Evidence from cardiac rehabilitation has demonstrated the noninferiority of a smartphone-based telerehabilitation approach (REMOTE-CR) to improve cardiorespiratory fitness in people with cardiovascular disease compared to a center-based program. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the feasibility, safety, and preliminary efficacy of the REMOTE-CR program adapted for patients with breast cancer at risk of cardiotoxicity (REMOTE-COR-B). We will also assess the satisfaction and usability of REMOTE-COR-B. METHODS: We will conduct a single-arm feasibility study of the REMOTE-COR-B program among patients with stage I-III breast cancer who are at risk of cardiotoxicity (taking treatment type and dose, as well as other common cardiovascular disease risk factors into account) and who are within 24 months of completing primary definitive treatment. Participants (target sample size of 40) will receive an 8-week smartphone-based telerehabilitation exercise program involving remotely delivered real-time supervision and behavior change support. The platform comprises a smartphone and wearable heart rate monitor, as well as a custom-built smartphone app and web application. Participants will be able to attend remotely monitored exercise sessions during set operating hours each week, scheduled in both the morning and evening. Adherence is the primary outcome of the trial, assessed through the number of remotely monitored exercise sessions attended compared to the trial target (ie, 3 sessions per week). Secondary outcomes include additional trial feasibility indicators (eg, recruitment and retention), safety, satisfaction, and usability, and objective and patient-reported efficacy outcomes (cardiovascular fitness, quality of life, fatigue, self-reported exercise, self-efficacy, habit strength, and motivation). Adherence, feasibility, and safety outcomes will be assessed during the intervention period; intervention satisfaction and usability will be assessed post intervention; and objective and patient-reported efficacy outcomes will be assessed at baseline, post intervention (2-month postbaseline assessment), and at follow-up (5-month postbaseline assessment). RESULTS: Recruitment for this trial commenced in March 2023, and 7 participants had been recruited as of the submission of the manuscript. The estimated completion date for the project is October 2024, with results expected to be published in mid-2025. CONCLUSIONS: The REMOTE-COR-B intervention is a novel and promising approach to providing exercise therapy to patients with breast cancer at risk of cardiotoxicity who have unique needs and heightened safety risks. This project will provide important information on the extent to which this approach is satisfactory to patients with breast cancer, safe, and potentially effective, which is necessary before larger-scale research or clinical projects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12621001557820; www.anzctr.org.au/ACTRN12621001557820.aspx. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/53301.
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 | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.044 | 0.009 |
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".