MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Longitudinal Associations Between Physical Activity And Survival By Cancer Treatments In Endometrial Cancer Survivors

2024· article· en· W4402662835 on OpenAlexaffabout
Justin Y. Jeon, Ki-Yong An, Minsuk Oh, Renée L. Kokts‐Porietis, Linda Cook, Christine M. Friedenreich, Kerry S. Courneya

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEndometrial cancerCancerOncologyMedicineCancer survivorCancer survivalInternal medicineGerontologyGynecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Different cancer treatment modalities may alter the association between physical activity (PA) and cancer outcomes. Here, we report the associations of prediagnosis and postdiagnosis PA with survival based on different treatment combinations from our Alberta Endometrial Cancer Cohort Study. METHODS: Women diagnosed with invasive endometrial cancer (N = 540) were asked to recall prediagnosis lifetime PA about 2-4 months after diagnosis, and postdiagnosis PA about 2-4 years after diagnosis, using the Lifetime Total Physical Activity Questionnaire. Vital status, second primary cancers, recurrences, and treatments were collected from medical charts. Multivariable Cox regression models were used for analyses after adjusting for demographic, medical, and health characteristics. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 16.7 years, there were 206 disease-free survival (DFS) events (recurrences, second primary cancers, and deaths). In terms of treatment combinations, 61.7% received surgery only, and 35.9% received surgery plus an adjuvant therapy. There was a statistically significant interaction between treatment combination and meeting PA guidelines (≥150 PA minutes/week) during prediagnosis (p = 0.001). In subgroup analysis, participants in the surgery-only group who met the PA guidelines during prediagnosis had an 18% lower risk of a DFS event (HR = 0.82; CI: 0.53-1.27) whereas participants in the surgery-plus-adjuvant group who met the PA guidelines during prediagnosis had a 47% higher risk of a DFS event (HR = 1.47; CI: 0.92-2.35). Conversely, there was no statistically significant interaction between meeting the PA guidelines during postdiagnosis and treatment combination (p = 0.61). In subgroup analysis, participants in the surgery-only group who met the PA guidelines during postdiagnosis had a 44% lower risk of a DFS event (HR: 0.56; CI: 0.32-0.99) similar to participants in the surgery-plus-adjuvant group who met the PA guidelines during postdiagnosis who had a 37% lower risk of a DFS event (HR: 0.63; CI: 0.33-1.20). CONCLUSIONS: The association between prediagnosis PA and DFS in endometrial cancer survivors may be altered by subsequent treatments. Conversely, the association between postdiagnosis PA and DFS does not appear to be affected by previous treatments.

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)0.002
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 score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score0.272

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.322 · 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→