MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409346976 · doi:10.1097/ncc.0000000000001408

Pilot Testing of Build StaMINA: A Tailored Physical Activity Program for Adults Receiving Treatment for Acute Myeloid Leukemia

2024· article· en· W4409346976 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tara Albrecht, Amy M. Pastva, Qing Yang, Thomas W. LeBlanc, Daniel Richardson, Ashley Leak Bryant

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Nursing · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialIntervention (counseling)Physical therapyAdverse effectCognitionClinical trialDepression (economics)Internal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is an aggressive and often debilitating cancer for adults across the treatment trajectory. Patients experience frequent hospitalization, sedentariness, and negative sequelae including physical dysfunction and symptoms, which increase their risk for adverse events and mortality. OBJECTIVE: To test the preliminary efficacy of a tailored physical activity (PA) program. METHODS: This is a 2-group randomized controlled trial to explore the preliminary effects of a home-based tailored PA program versus attention control. The intervention includes PA across all physical domains important for independence. Assessments included physical function (6-Minute Walk Distance, primary), cognition (Montreal Cognitive Assessment), and patient-reported symptoms (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System) at baseline and 6 and 12 weeks. RESULTS: Forty-six adults with AML were randomized into intervention (n = 22) and control (n = 24). Participants had a mean age of 58 years. No adverse events were reported. We observed a 22% attrition and 83% adherence to the intervention. Clinically significant increases in 6-Minute Walk Distance (mean, 49.78 ± 98.9 vs 3.7 ± 155.1 m) and mean scores for cognition (3.2 [9.9] vs -0.7 [9.7]), depression (-5.1 [12.9] vs -1.8 [7.7]), and self-efficacy (3.7 [8.0] vs 1.4 [7.2]) from baseline to 12 weeks were found in the intervention group versus control group. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support safety, feasibility, and further testing of this intervention in a larger trial powered to evaluate efficacy of this tailored PA intervention to support adult AML survivors during treatment. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This tailored intervention has the potential to support patients with AML and manage common sequelae across the treatment trajectory.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score0.798

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer NursingSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207