Building a Bridge to Community: A Pragmatic Randomized Trial Examining a Combined Physical Therapy and Resistance Exercise Intervention for People after Head and Neck Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Established barriers to general exercise and physical activity among individuals with head and neck cancer include dry mouth, difficulty eating, weight loss, fear of injury, comorbidities, and treatment-related symptoms of pain and fatigue. METHODS/DESIGN: A 12-week pragmatic randomized controlled trial was conducted followed by an optional supported exercise transition phase. Eligible participants were individuals with head and neck cancers who had undergone surgery and/or radiation therapy to lymph node regions in the neck. Participants were randomized to a comparison group involving a shoulder and neck physiotherapeutic exercise protocol, or to a combined experimental group comprising the shoulder and neck physiotherapeutic exercise protocol and lower-body resistance exercise training. The primary outcome of this study was fatigue-related quality of life. RESULTS: Sixty-one participants enrolled, 59 (97%) completed the randomized trial phase, 55 (90%) completed the 24-week follow-up, and 52 (85%) completed the one-year follow-up. Statistically significant between-group differences were found in favor of the combined experimental group for the fatigue-related quality of life, fitness outcomes, and overall physical activity. Paired comparisons confirmed significant within-group improvements for both groups from baseline to one-year follow-up across most outcomes. DISCUSSION: A group-based combined physiotherapeutic and lower-body resistance exercise program was feasible and effective. Findings are limited to individuals who had undergone a surgical neck dissection procedure. Given the complexity of head and neck cancer, further pragmatic interdisciplinary research is warranted.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".