History informing the future of exercise oncology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exercise is increasingly recognized by patients, clinicians, and allied health professionals globally as an important component of cancer care. In this paper, we provide a viewpoint on developments in exercise oncology over the past 4 decades leading up to the creation of the International Society of Exercise Oncology (ISEO). We briefly review research in adult and pediatric cancers from early foundation studies to larger randomized controlled trials published in mainstream oncology journals alongside critical work undertaken in exercise and cancer biological mechanisms. We also discuss potential strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats facing ISEO in becoming a global forum for exercise oncology. Building on the foundational work undertaken over the past 4 decades by researchers, clinicians, and practitioners, ISEO provides an opportunity to support research, leverage collaborations and partnerships, facilitate education and training, increase awareness of exercise oncology, and support translation of research to clinical practice, ultimately improving the quality and quantity of life for people with cancer.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".