MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402082751 · doi:10.1016/j.aehs.2024.08.002

Associations of changes in physical activity and well-being among cancer survivors during the COVID-19 pandemic

2024· article· en· W4402082751 on OpenAlexafffund
Natalie Cuda, Allyson Tabaczynski, Denise Bastas, Alexis Whitehorn, Golnaz Ghazinour, Linda Trinh

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvanced Exercise and Health Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsPandemicMedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)CancerCancer survivorDemographyPhysical activityGerontologyInternal medicineDiseasePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Meeting the physical activity (PA) guidelines (i.e., ≥ 150 min/week of aerobic PA and/or 2 days/week of resistance training) is beneficial for cancer survivors’ well-being. However, the impact of changes in PA participation during the COVID-19 pandemic on well-being of cancer survivors remains unknown. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to examine the associations between changes in PA and well-being in cancer survivors during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Cancer survivors participated in a cross sectional, online survey globally. The 20-Item Short Form Survey and the modified Godin Leisure Time Exercise Questionnaire assessed well-being and PA, respectively. Separate analysis of covariance examined well-being across PA change categories: abstainers, adopters, relapsers and maintainers. Results: Cancer survivors (N = 495; Mage=48.7 ± 15.5 years) were predominantly diagnosed with breast cancer (28.8 %). PA abstainers had significantly worse physical functioning (−19.3 points, p < 0.01; −14.0 points, p < 0.01), and role functioning (−16.6 points, p = 0.02; −12.9 points, p < 0.01) outcomes compared to adopters and maintainers, respectively. Whereas adopters had significantly less pain compared to abstainers (−13.4 points, p < 0.01) and relapsers (−11.1 points, p = 0.01) as well as better health perception than abstainers (14.2 points, p < 0.01) and relapsers (13.8 points, p < 0.01). Age (≥50 years), time since diagnosis (≥5 years), and time since treatment (<5 years) moderated the relationship between abstained or relapsed PA behavior and poor well-being outcomes. Conclusion: PA declines during the COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacted well-being outcomes in cancer survivors. Declines in well-being and PA were heightened in long-term cancer survivors who were older in age and within 5 years of treatment. Future research should identify the PA barriers specific to these cancer survivors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.351 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvanced Exercise and Health ScienceSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207