MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Translating Exercise Recommendations For People With Bone Metastases: Moving Guidelines Into Professional Development Resources

2025· article· en· W4414264864 on OpenAlexaff
L Capozzi, Kelcey A. Bland, Shirin M. Shallwani, Michelle B. Nadler, Sarah Neil‐Sztramko, Kirstin N. Lane, Kelly MacKenzie, Kristin L. Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicManagement of metastatic bone disease
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExercise prescriptionProfessional developmentWork (physics)MEDLINEProfessional associationMedical prescriptionPhysical activityContinuing professional development

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Recommendations from the International Bone Metastases Exercise Working Group, published in 2022, emphasize that regular exercise may benefit people with bone metastases. Despite this, adopting guidelines into clinical practice remains challenging. A leading barrier includes limited knowledge among exercise professionals on how to safely assess, prescribe and tailor exercise for this population. Recommendations endorse physical therapists and clinical exercise physiologists as the professionals responsible for prescribing exercise to this population, but limited education is available for these providers. Evidence-based professional development (PD) resources are necessary to fill this gap. PURPOSE: The purpose of this project was to assess the preferences and barriers of exercise professionals to accessing PD products related to bone metastases. METHODS: An electronic survey gathering demographic and professional caseload information was distributed to exercise professionals who may work with people with bone metastases, along with a questionnaire identifying preferences for PD materials and barriers to participation. Based on data collected, PD products were developed using the experience-based co-design process. RESULTS: A total of 183 international exercise professionals completed the survey, including a mix of physical therapists (n = 56), clinical exercise physiologists (n = 38), exercise specialists (n = 26), fitness instructors (n = 21) and kinesiologists (n = 7). Of those, 92% indicated working with people with bone metastases. Over 80% indicated that more PD resources were needed. Preferences for content included focusing on exercise safety, feasibility, and prescription considerations, and preferred format included online live webinars, and pre-recorded video, audio, or written materials. In-person courses were less desirable. Barriers to accessing PD included cost and travel. CONCLUSIONS: A lack of discipline-specific training for exercise professionals remains a significant barrier to implementing current exercise recommendations for individuals living with bone metastases. Exercise professionals reported preferences and barriers related to PD resources helped generate a framework for developing PD materials that will be launched in 2025.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.038
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.109
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.199

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0380.109
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.008

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseSame topicManagement of metastatic bone diseaseFrench-language works237,207