Comparative efficacy of various exercise types on psychophysiological outcomes in colorectal cancer survivors: a network meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This network meta-analysis aimed to evaluate and rank the comparative efficacy of aerobic training (AT), resistance training (RT), combined AT and RT (CT), and high-intensity interval training (HIIT) primarily on body weight and secondarily on body mass index (BMI), fat-free mass, fasting glucose, fasting insulin, handgrip strength, physical activity, cardiorespiratory fitness, fatigue, quality of life, anxiety, depression, and exercise adherence in colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors. METHODS: MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and MedRxiv were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from inception up to July 1, 2025. RCTs published in English comparing exercise to controls (CON) or to another exercise type in CRC patients after colon resection surgery were qualified. RESULTS: Thirty-two studies involving 2001 CRC survivors (51.3/48.7 male-female ratio; mean ± standard deviation: age, 58.0 ± 10.2 years; BMI, 27.1 ± 3.9 kg·m -2 ) were included. HIIT and CT were more effective than CON in improving cardiorespiratory fitness and fasting insulin, respectively. No exercise type was identified as being more efficacious than CON in improving any other outcome measures. Nevertheless, HIIT had the highest probability of being the best exercise intervention for improving body weight, physical activity, cardiorespiratory fitness, and quality of life. AT had the highest likelihood of reducing BMI, fasting glucose, and anxiety. CT had the highest probability of improving fasting insulin, fatigue, depression, and exercise adherence, while RT showed the highest probability of being the most effective exercise type in increasing handgrip strength and fat-free mass. CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence indicates few confirmed benefits of exercise in CRC survivors, suggesting which types of exercise are most promising for a given psychophysiological outcome and may inform further large-scale RCTs of high methodological quality.
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 | 0.016 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.047 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".