Aerobic exercise and CogniTIVe functioning in women with breAsT cancEr (ACTIVATE): A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background As the prevalence of chemotherapy‐related cognitive impairment rises, investigation into treatment options is critical. The objectives of this study were to test the effects of an aerobic exercise intervention initiated during chemotherapy compared to usual care (wait list control condition) on (1) objectively measured cognitive function and self‐reported cognitive function, as well as on (2) the impact of cognitive impairment on quality of life (QOL) postintervention (commensurate with chemotherapy completion). Methods The Aerobic exercise and CogniTIVe functioning in women with breAsT cancEr (ACTIVATE) trial was a two‐arm, two‐center randomized controlled trial conducted in Ottawa and Vancouver (Canada). Fifty‐seven women (M age , 48.8 ± 10 years) diagnosed with stage I–III breast cancer and awaiting chemotherapy were randomized to aerobic exercise initiated with chemotherapy ( n EX = 28) or usual care during chemotherapy with aerobic exercise after chemotherapy completion ( n UC = 29). The intervention lasted 12–24 weeks and consisted of supervised aerobic training and at‐home exercise. The primary outcome was objective cognitive function measured via 13 neuropsychological tests (standardized to M ± SD, 0 ± 1); secondary outcomes of self‐reported cognitive function and its impact on QOL were assessed via questionnaires. Data collected pre‐ and postintervention (the primary end point) were analyzed. Results Although no significant differences between groups were found for objective cognitive function outcomes postintervention after accounting for multiple testing, four of six self‐reported cognitive function outcomes showed significant differences favoring the aerobic exercise group. Conclusions Among women initiating chemotherapy for breast cancer, aerobic exercise did not result in significant differences in objective cognitive function postintervention after chemotherapy completion; however, the results do support the use of this intervention for improving self‐reported cognitive function and its impact on QOL.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".