Exercise interventions for older adults with advanced cancer: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The feasibility, safety, acceptability, and perceptions of exercise in older adults with advanced disease are not well understood due to the scarcity of evidence. This scoping review aimed to (1) summarize evidence on the feasibility, acceptability, and safety of exercise interventions for older adults with advanced cancer and (2) explore this population's perceptions on participating in exercise programs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search was conducted by an expert research librarian in Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and SPORTDiscus (inception through November 2023). Eligible studies included older adults with advanced (stage IV or receiving treatment with non-curative intent) solid cancers and intervention or qualitative studies on physical activity/exercise in older adults pertaining to our objectives. RESULTS: A total of 36 studies were included: 28 (78 %) intervention studies, seven (19 %) qualitative studies, and one (3 %) cross-sectional study. The Frequency/Intensity/Time/Type (FITT) principle was described in 18 studies (64 %). Feasibility was examined in 15 of the 28 intervention studies (54 %) using various definitions. Four studies had predetermined feasibility thresholds, yielding mixed results. One intervention study reported on two intervention-related severe adverse events. Nineteen of the 28 intervention studies (68 %) examined acceptability, reporting high levels of participant satisfaction. Qualitative data revealed several barriers and facilitators to exercise. DISCUSSION: Exercise appears to be feasible, acceptable, and safe in older adults with advanced cancer. Consistent reporting on the FITT principle and feasibility operationalization are areas of improvement in exercise studies in older adults with advanced disease.
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 | 0.013 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".