THE EFFECT OF INTRA-INFUSION EXERCISE ON CHEMOTHERAPY SIDE EFFECTS; AN INTERIM ANALYSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Chemotherapy treatment results in side effects that impact quality of life and physical activity behaviours. Aerobic exercise in parallel with chemotherapy reduces side effects particularly fatigue and improves quality of life. Our recent clinical pilot work has shown that an acute bout of aerobic exercise increases blood flow to tumours. Therefore, if exercise is performed during chemotherapy (intra-infusion exercise), the result may be increased drug delivery and treatment efficacy. Intra-infusion exercise also provides a supervised opportunity to overcome patient-reported barriers to exercise during a period where a patient would be otherwise sedentary. AIM: The aim of this ongoing randomised controlled trial is to determine the effects of aerobic intra-infusion exercise on chemotherapy side effects and physical activity behaviours. METHODS Adults under 75 years receiving chemotherapy with stage I-III breast, colorectal or ovarian cancer, and ECOG 0-2 were eligible. Four chemotherapy sessions were included, cycle 1 (C1) a baseline and cycles 2-4 (C2-4) included exercise intervention or usual care. The exercise task was 20-minutes of moderate intensity cycling (40-50% heart rate reserve) during infusion. All participants received exercise education. A 7-day symptom diary (including Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) and Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS)) was completed following C1-C4 and an activity monitor worn. RESULTS Nineteen participants have completed the trial (79% female), with no adverse events reported in either group. Physical symptoms increased across cycles in both groups (p=0.003). 1-week mean ESAS physical symptoms total in the exercise group (C1 16±9.8, C4 23±13.7) and control group (C1 18±7.1, C4 23±12.7) were similar. No significant effects were seen for fatigue or step count. CONCLUSION Intra-infusion exercise is safe and does not increase side effects in patients receiving chemotherapy. Expected increases in physical symptoms were observed without difference between usual care and exercise. Further analysis with ongoing recruitment will continue to examine any differences between groups.
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 | 0.020 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
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".