A scoping review of exercise oncology trials to inform best practice recommendations for exercise in older adults (65+ years) living with and beyond cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We conducted a scoping review of published controlled exercise oncology trials to inform the development of best practice guidelines for delivering exercise to older cancer survivors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eligible articles reported on controlled trials that allocated people ≥65 years old at enrollment and a history of cancer to ≥1 arm of structured exercise training lasting ≥4 weeks that was aimed to improve a health-related outcome. We extracted and summarized data on trial design, basic characteristics, trial outcomes, eligibility criteria, pre-exercise medical clearance, intervention characteristics, feasibility (accrual, retention, adherence, compliance), safety and tolerance. RESULTS: Out of 1790 articles identified, 1784 were excluded, yielding six eligible studies. Three trials tested a combined aerobic + resistance training program, one trial tested aerobic exercise only, one trial included resistance training only, and one trial compared an arm of resistance training to an arm of aerobic training. Main health-related outcomes were aerobic capacity (n = 1) and physical function (n = 5). Four out of six studies required medical clearance prior to participation and several studies excluded physical (n = 3) and/or cognitive limitations (n = 3). Trial accrual ranged from 21%-37%, adherence ranged from 48%-84%, and retention ranged from 61%-77%. Compliance with exercise training was rarely tracked or reported. One serious adverse event (syncope leading to hospitalization) possibly attributed to exercise was reported across all six trials. DISCUSSION: There are very few studies available to inform evidence-based exercise guidelines for older adult cancer survivors. In turn, consensus-based guidelines could provide recommendations so that older cancer survivors receive appropriate exercise guidance.
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 | 0.055 | 0.196 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.029 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".