The feasibility of a multi-site, clinic-supported, and tailored neuro-oncology exercise program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: To address the lack of access to supportive cancer care resources, the purpose of this study was to examine the feasibility of a tailored exercise program for neuro-oncology patients. Methods: Patients with a primary brain tumor diagnosis, >18 years, and able to consent in English were recruited at 2 tertiary cancer centers in Alberta. Recruitment occurred via the electronic medical record as well as self-referral. A 12-week, tailored exercise intervention with health coaching was delivered in both one-on-one and group-based formats, either in-person or online. Measures of feasibility included tracking referral, enrollment, intervention completion and adherence, measurement completion, fidelity, participant satisfaction, and safety. Participant-reported outcomes and functional fitness were assessed at baseline and 12 weeks. Objective physical activity was tracked via a Garmin activity tracker. Results: = 51 completed the intervention. The referral rate was 31%, the enrollment rate was 66%, and intervention completion and adherence rates were 82.3% and 89.7%. At baseline and 12 weeks, measurement completion rates were 100% and 77.4% for patient-reported outcomes, and 98.4% and 75.8% for functional fitness. The average wear-time for the activity tracker was 72.8%. Fidelity of intervention delivery was 100% for exercise sessions and 87.8% for health coaching. Overall participant satisfaction was 86.5%. No major and 4 minor adverse events occurred. Conclusions: Delivery of a tailored neuro-oncology exercise program with referral included via the electronic medical record is feasible. Future work is needed to optimize tailored programming as well as to address factors critical for implementation into standard cancer care. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT04831190 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04831190).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".