Understanding the Feasibility and Benefits of Exercise Programs in Individuals Living With a Brain Cancer Diagnosis: A Scoping Review Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To describe a scoping review that aims to summarize the evidence of exercise interventions in individuals living with a primary brain cancer diagnosis. This work will map the implementation and characteristics of targeted exercise interventions designed to lower symptom burden and improve overall quality of life for those living with and beyond primary brain cancer. Introduction: Individuals with primary brain cancer are often challenged by several highly debilitating physical, cognitive, and emotional side effects that can negatively impact overall quality of life. Exercise has the potential to aid in decreasing the burden of these symptoms; however, the use of exercise as a therapeutic intervention for individuals living with brain cancer has been limited and much is left to be explored. Inclusion criteria: Studies considered for this review will explore exercise-based interventions in individuals diagnosed with primary brain cancer. Methods: This scoping review will be conducted in accordance with Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology. Databases will be searched from inception to present and will include CINAHL, MEDLINE, Embase, SPORTDiscus, Scopus, and PsycInfo. A comprehensive search strategy was developed in accordance with JBI methodology to retrieve relevant sources. Two independent reviewers will screen titles, abstracts, and full texts of relevant sources. The results of the search and the study inclusion process will be reported in full in a PRISMA-ScR flow diagram. Data will be extracted by two independent reviewers and then mapped under the FITT (frequency, intensity, time, type) principles. The results will be presented narratively, using appropriate tables and figures. Conclusion: This review will provide a comprehensive summary of the feasibility and efficacy/effectiveness of exercise interventions for individuals living with primary brain cancer. This work will also describe the exercise protocols of the reviewed interventions and will highlight strategies to improve intervention design and implementation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".