MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402722819 · doi:10.3389/fonc.2024.1432899

An integrated framework for the study of exercise across the postdiagnosis cancer continuum

2024· article· en· W4402722819 on OpenAlexafffund
Kerry S. Courneya, Margaret L. McNeely, Christopher M. Booth, Christine M. Friedenreich

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsMedicinePrehabilitationDiseaseCancerContext (archaeology)RehabilitationPhysical therapyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exercise plays many important roles across the entire cancer continuum that have been described in previous frameworks. These frameworks, however, have generally provided a simplified description of the roles of exercise postdiagnosis. The modern cancer treatment landscape has become complex and often consists of multiple lines of multimodal treatments combined concurrently and/or sequentially and delivered over many months or years. This complexity requires a more multifaceted and targeted approach to the study of exercise after a cancer diagnosis. Here, we propose a new integrated framework-Exercise Across the Postdiagnosis Cancer Continuum (EPiCC)-that highlights the distinct roles of exercise for disease treatment and supportive care from diagnosis until death. We also propose new terminology to clarify the distinct roles of exercise that emerge in the context of the modern cancer treatment landscape. The EPiCC Framework is structured around multiple sequential cancer treatments that highlight six distinct cancer treatment-related time periods for exercise-before treatments, during treatments, between treatments, immediately after successful treatments, during longer term survivorship after successful treatments, and during end of life after unsuccessful treatments. The EPiCC Framework proposes that the specific roles of exercise as a disease treatment and supportive care intervention will vary depending on its positioning within different cancer treatment combinations. As a cancer treatment, exercise may serve as a "priming therapy", primary therapy, neoadjuvant therapy, induction therapy, "bridging therapy", adjuvant therapy, consolidation therapy, maintenance therapy, and/or salvage therapy. As a supportive care intervention, exercise may serve as prehabilitation, intrahabilitation, interhabilitation, rehabilitation, "perihabilitation", health promotion/disease prevention, and/or palliation. To date, exercise has been studied during all of the cancer treatment-related time periods but only in relation to some cancer treatments and combinations. Moreover, fewer studies have examined exercise across multiple cancer treatment-related time periods within any cancer treatment combination. Future research is needed to study exercise as a disease treatment and supportive care intervention within and across the distinct cancer treatment-related time periods contained within different cancer treatment combinations. The aim of the EPiCC Framework is to stimulate a more targeted, integrated, and clinically-informed approach to the study of exercise after a cancer diagnosis.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.582
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.366 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations23
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in OncologySame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207