MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

The Effect Of Aerobic Exercise During Chemotherapy On Fitness In Individuals With Non-Metastatic Breast Cancer

2024· article· en· W4402662017 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kendra Zadravec, Kelcey A. Bland, Nathalie LeVasseur, Christine Simmons, Amirrtha Srikanthan, Jennifer Brunet, Kristin L. Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaBC Cancer AgencyOttawa HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerMedicineAerobic exerciseOncologyInternal medicineChemotherapyCancerMetastatic breast cancerPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aerobic exercise and CogniTIVe functioning in women with breAsT cancEr (ACTIVATE) was a 2-arm, single-blinded randomized controlled trial examining the effects of supervised, progressive aerobic exercise on cognitive function in individuals receiving curative-intent chemotherapy for breast cancer. Participants were randomized to exercise during chemotherapy (EX) or usual care wait-list control (UC). EX was periodized to participants’ chemotherapy regimen and lasted 12 to 24 weeks based on chemotherapy duration. PURPOSE: To test differences in aerobic fitness between EX and UC at baseline and after chemotherapy. METHODS: Ventilatory threshold (VT) and relative VO2peak were measured using a maximal cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) on a cycle ergometer at baseline and after chemotherapy. Maximal heart rate (end of CPET) and wattage (maintained for ≥30s in last stage of CPET) were also assessed. T-tests were used to evaluate between-group differences in VT, relative VO2peak, time to VT and VO2peak, maximal heart rate, and maximal wattage from baseline to after chemotherapy. RESULTS: The analytical sample comprised 31 participants (EX: n = 19; UC: n = 12) with a mean age of 49.1 ± 11.1 years. Most participants (77%) received adjuvant chemotherapy. At baseline, there were no significant differences in aerobic fitness outcomes between groups (p < 0.05). From baseline to after chemotherapy, UC and EX exhibited a decrease in VT (-0.24 ± 0.47 vs. -0.06 ± 0.33 L/min; p = 0.22), VO2peak (-3.6 ± 3.6 vs. -1.4 ± 4.1 L/min; p = 0.13), maximal heart rate (-2.7 ± 7.4 vs. -3.5 ± 8.2 bpm; p = 0.39), and time to VT (-90.5 ± 123.5 vs. -28.1 ± 152.1 s; p = 0.12); none of these changes significantly differed between groups. Compared to EX, UC had a significantly greater decrease in maximal wattage (-30.2 ± 22.3 vs. -11.1 ± 28.6 W; p = 0.047) and time to VO2peak (-115.3 ± 56.7 vs. -63.1 ± 99.4 s; p = 0.036) from baseline to after chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: While both UC and EX experienced declines in aerobic fitness outcomes after chemotherapy, the magnitude of decrease in maximal wattage and time to VO2peak was significantly greater for UC participants, who did not exercise during chemotherapy. Additional work is needed to explore differences in aerobic fitness outcomes by participant subgroup (e.g., age, chemotherapy type). Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, AVON Foundation

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicCancer survivorship and care→French-language works237,207→