Effect of home‐based resistance training on chemotherapy relative dose intensity and tolerability in colon cancer: The FORCE randomized control trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many patients with colon cancer cannot fully adhere to postoperative chemotherapy due to dose-limiting toxicities, resulting in lower relative dose intensity (RDI) and potentially compromising overall survival. This study examined whether home-based resistance training (RT) during adjuvant chemotherapy improves RDI and patient-reported toxicities versus usual care (UC) in colon cancer patients. METHODS: Multicenter, randomized control trial (RCT) conducted at community and academic practices. Enrollment of patients receiving postoperative chemotherapy for colon cancer occurred between February 23, 2018, and September 29, 2021; final follow-up was March 21, 2022. Participants were randomized to RT (n = 90) or UC (n = 91) for the duration of chemotherapy. Participants in the RT group engaged in twice weekly home-based progressive RT. At the end of the study, UC was given an online exercise program. RESULTS: Among 181 randomized patients (mean age, 55.2 [SD, 12.8] years, 95 [52.5%] were men), there were no differences in the mean RDI among those in RT (79% [SD, 19%]) and those in UC (82% [SD, 19%]); (mean difference -0.04 [95% confidence interval (CI), -0.09 to 0.02]). Assignment to RT did not significantly reduce the number of moderate/severe symptoms per week across follow-up (relative rate: 0.94 [95% CI, 0.72-1.22]). Additionally, time since randomization did not significantly modify the effect of RT on the overall number of symptoms (p = .06). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with colon cancer, these results do not support home-based RT as an adjunct to chemotherapy specifically to improve planned treatment intensity.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".