MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4404931976 · doi:10.1186/s12889-024-20592-9

Effectiveness of aerobic exercise intervention on cardiovascular disease risk in female breast cancer: a systematic review with meta-analyses

2024· review· en· W4404931976 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Qian Jiao, Bowen Xu, Chao Meng, Fan Xu, Shanshan Li, Jiayi Zhong, Min Yang, Li Jiang, Haixia Li

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Public Health · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialCochrane LibraryMeta-analysisRelative riskAerobic exerciseCohort studyPhysical therapyConfidence intervalCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) has become the leading cause of competitive mortality in female breast cancer (BC). Regular aerobic exercise (AE) has been widely accepted as an effective intervention to reduce cardiovascular risk in a variety of different clinical conditions. This study is aimed at evaluating the efficacy and safety of AE on cardiovascular risk factors in female BC and assessing the quality of the synthesized evidence. We searched five English databases (Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science) from inception to January 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort trials studying the effects of AE intervention on cardiovascular disease risk in female breast cancer were included. We used Stata 16 for data synthesis, Risk of Bias 2, and the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale for methodological quality evaluation and assessed the certainty of the synthesized evidence in the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. Forty RCTs and 6 cohort trials involving 44,877 BC patients showed AE reduced the incidence of CVD events by 29.4% [risk ratio (RR) = 0.706, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.659, 0.757), low certainty] and coronary artery disease events by 36% [RR = 0.640, 95% CI (0.561, 0.729), low certainty]. AE improved LVEF, and reduced weight and hip circumference. The subgroup analysis results showed that nonlinear AE increased VO 2 max by 5.354 ml·kg·min −1 [mean difference (MD) = 5.354, 95% CI (2.645, 8.062), very low certainty] and reduced fat mass by 4.256 kg [MD = 4.256, 95% CI (-3.839, -0.094), very low certainty]. While linear AE reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) by 8.534 mg/dL [MD = -8.534, 95% CI (-15.511, -1.557), low certainty]. The sensitivity analysis results showed that each trial did not affect the impact index of the highly heterogeneous outcomes. Our study indicates that AE has a positive effect in reducing cardiovascular risk factors. The individualization principle of AE deserves more attention in the future. This will provide new ideas to reduce CVD events and improve the quality of life in female BC patients. However, further research on AE in female BC should take into account long-term and well-designed administration to draw definitive conclusions.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.041
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.150
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Public Health→Same topicCancer survivorship and care→French-language works237,207→