Cardio-oncology rehabilitation and exercise: evidence, priorities, and research standards from the ICOS-CORE working group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this whitepaper is to review the current state of the literature on the effects of cardio-oncology rehabilitation and exercise (CORE) programmes and provide a roadmap for improving the evidence-based to support the implementation of CORE. There is an urgent need to reinforce and extend the evidence informing the cardiovascular care of cancer survivors. CORE is an attractive model that is potentially scalable to improve the cardiovascular health of cancer survivors as it leverages many of the existing frameworks developed through decades of delivery of cardiac rehabilitation. However, there are several challenges within this burgeoning field, including limited evidence of the efficacy of this approach in patients with cancer. In this paper, a multidisciplinary team of international experts highlights priorities for future research in this field and recommends standards for the conduct of research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.070 | 0.113 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".