Changes in Physical Activity Across Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment Based on Smartphone Step Count Data Linked to a Japanese Claims Database: Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although physical activity (PA) is recommended for patients with cancer, changes in PA across cancer diagnosis and treatment have not been objectively evaluated. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the impact of cancer diagnosis and treatment on PA levels. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study using a Japanese claims database provided by DeSC Healthcare Inc, in which daily step count data, derived from smartphone pedometers, are linked to the claims data. In this study, we included patients newly diagnosed with cancer, along with those newly diagnosed with diabetes mellitus for reference. We collected data between April 2014 and September 2021 and analyzed them. The observation period spanned from 6 months before diagnosis to 12 months after diagnosis. We applied a generalized additive mixed model with a cubic spline to describe changes in step counts before and after diagnosis. RESULTS: We analyzed the step count data of 326 patients with malignant solid tumors and 1388 patients with diabetes. Patients with cancer exhibited a 9.6% (95% CI 7.1%-12.1%; P<.001) reduction in step counts from baseline at the start of the diagnosis month, which further deepened to 12.4% (95% CI 9.5%-15.2%; P<.001) at 3 months and persisted at 7.1% (95% CI 4.2%-10.0%; P<.001) at 12 months, all relative to baseline. Conversely, in patients with diabetes, step counts remained relatively stable after diagnosis, with a slight upward trend, resulting in a change of +0.6% (95% CI -0.6% to 1.9%; P=.31) from baseline at 3 months after diagnosis. At 12 months after diagnosis, step counts remained decreased in the nonendoscopic subdiaphragmatic surgery group, with an 18.0% (95% CI 9.1%-26.2%; P<.001) reduction, whereas step counts returned to baseline in the laparoscopic surgery group (+0.3%, 95% CI -6.3% to 7.5%; P=.93). CONCLUSIONS: The analysis of objective pre- and postdiagnostic step count data provided fundamental information crucial for understanding changes in PA among patients with cancer. While cancer diagnosis and treatment reduced PA, the decline may have already started before diagnosis. The study findings may help tailor exercise recommendations based on lifelog data for patients with cancer in the future.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".