Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial of Lymfit: A Theory-Guided Exercise Intervention for Young Adults with Lymphoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the rapidly emerging evidence on the contributions of physical activity to improving cancer-related health outcomes, adherence to physical activity among young adults with lymphoma remains suboptimal. Guided by self-determination theory (SDT), the Lymfit intervention (a 12-week individualized exercise program with bi-weekly kinesiologist support and an activity tracker) aimed to foster autonomous motivation toward physical activity. This pilot randomized controlled trial aimed to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effects of Lymfit. Young adults (N = 26; mean age of 32.1 years) with lymphoma who were newly diagnosed and those up to six months after completing treatment were recruited and randomly assigned one-to-one to either the intervention group (n = 13) or a wait-list control group (n = 13). All a priori feasibility benchmarks were met, confirming the feasibility of the study in terms of recruitment uptake, retention, questionnaire completion, intervention fidelity, missing data, Fitbit wear adherence, and control group design. The intervention acceptability assessment showed high ratings, with eight out of ten items receiving >80% high ratings. At post-intervention, an analysis of covariance models showed a clinically significant increase in self-reported physical activity levels, psychological need satisfaction, and exercise motivation in the intervention group compared to controls. Lymfit also led to meaningful changes in six quality-of-life domains in the intervention group, including anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, social roles and activities, and pain interference. The findings support Lymfit as a promising means to meet psychological needs and increase the autonomous motivation for physical activity in this group. A fully powered efficacy trial is warranted to assess the validity of these findings.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".