MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effects of сomprehensive cardio-oncological rehabilitation programs on the psychological status of breast cancer survivors: a pilot randomized study

2025· article· en· W4414569663 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
M.V. Vitsenya, И. В. Баринова, Nana Pogosova, Tatevik A. Terteryan, D. T. Kuchiev, A.A. Gerasimova, A. Yu. Filatova, О. О. Фролкова, Ф. Т. Агеев

Bibliographic record

VenueAlmanac of Clinical Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosocialAnxietyRehabilitationQuality of life (healthcare)Randomized controlled trialBreast cancerDepression (economics)MoodRegimen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Psychological abnormalities are common among breast cancer (BC) survivors and may negatively impact their quality of life and outcomes. An improvement in the psychosocial well-being of cancer patients is a key objective of comprehensive cardio-oncology rehabilitation (CORE) programs. Remote CORE models could contribute to increased patient involvement in such programs. Aim: To compare the effectiveness of the off-line (Off-L) and online (On-L) CORE programs regarding their effects on the psychological status parameters in ВС survivors. Methods: This single center pilot randomized prospective study was conducted in a total of 90 BC survivors from 2021 to 2023 in a specialized cardiology clinic. The patients were randomized into three parallel groups in 1:1:1 ratio: the Off-L cardiac rehabilitation program group, the On-L cardiac rehabilitation program group, and the control group. The CORE programs included an educational component addressing cardiovascular risk factors with nutritional counseling, a supervised individualized twice weekly physical exercise program for 3 months (Off-L group), an individualized home-based physical exercise regimen with remote support for 3 months (On-L group), and psychological support with a single session with a psychologist. The control group patients were followed up in their routine clinical practice. In all patients, past history data were collected, including educational level and marital status. Baseline assessments and follow-up evaluation at 6 months included clinical characteristics, stress levels (visual analog scale, VAS), anxiety and depression scores (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, HADS), sleep quality (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index), and cognitive function (Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA). Results: The patients median age was 49 years [IQR 46; 56]. At baseline, anxiety symptoms (AS) were found in 45 (50%) patients, depressive symptoms (DS) in 16 (17.8%), high stress levels in 51 (56.7%), sleep disturbances in 80 (89%), and cognitive impairment in 11 (12.4%) patients. There were no differences at baseline between the groups in their main characteristics studied. Over the 6-month follow up, 23 patients dropped from the study. By the end of the observation period, the CORE groups showed a decrease in AS in the Off-L group (n = 20) from 8.5 [6.0; 10.0] to 6.0 [4.0; 9.5] points, with the difference in their median values of -1.5 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -3.0, -0.5, p = 0.026) and in the On-L group from 7.0 [5.0; 8.0] to 5.0 [3.0; 8.0] points (the difference in median values: -2.0, 95% CI: -3.0, 0.5, р = 0.018). No significant changes in AS were found in the control group (the difference in median values: -0.5, 95% CI: -2.0, 0.5, p = 0.181). In the patients with baseline subclinical (8 to 10 points, HADS-A) and clinically significant (≥ 11 points) anxiety, the participation in the CORE programs have led to a higher chance of its decrease either to 8 points or a change in the anxiety category from clinically overt to subclinical (odds ratio 5.667, 95% CI: 1.129, 28.455, р = 0.035). By the end of the follow up, the stress levels in the Off-L group decreased from 8.0 [5.0; 9.0] to 7.0 [4.0; 8.0] VAS points (the difference of the medians: -1.5, 95% CI: -2.0, 0.0, р = 0.050), in the On-L group from 7.0 [6.0; 8.0] to 5.0 [4.0; 6.8] points (the difference of the medians: -1.5, 95% CI: -2.5, -0.5, р = 0.003). There were no significant changes over time in the stress levels in the control group (the difference of the medians: 0.0, 95% CI: -1.0, 1.0, р = 0.974). No statistically significant changes were found in depression scores or sleep quality over the 6-month observation period in the study groups. The On-L group demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in the MoCA cognitive function scores (the difference of the medians: 0.5, 95% CI: 0.0, 1.0, р = 0.021). Conclusion: The participation of BC survivors in the CORE programs facilitates the decrease in anxiety and stress. The On-L CORE program is not inferior to the Off-L program in its impact on the patients’ psychological status. In this regard, further larger studies on the effectiveness of CORE models with various type of telemedicine support seem promising in this patient population.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.345
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.381 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlmanac of Clinical MedicineSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207