The effect of a person-centred lifestyle programme on cancer-related fatigue in colorectal cancer survivors: a randomised trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cancer-related fatigue is a common problem among colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors even after completion of treatment. In a randomised trial, we assessed the effect of a person-centred lifestyle programme on cancer-related fatigue among CRC survivors who completed treatment. Survivors who completed treatment at least 6 months but no longer than 5 years ago and who were experiencing cancer-related fatigue were randomised to intervention or control group. The intervention group worked with a lifestyle coach for 6 months during twelve sessions to stepwise increase adherence to the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute of Cancer Research cancer prevention guidelines on healthy diet and physical activity. The control group did not receive lifestyle coaching. Changes in cancer-related fatigue from baseline to 6 months were assessed with the FACIT (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy) - Fatigue Scale. As a secondary outcome, we assessed changes in health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Higher scores indicate less fatigue and better HRQoL. Eighty participants were randomised to the intervention group; eighty-one to the control group. Baseline characteristics were similar: mean age 64·1 (sd 10·9) years; 55·3 % were women; and 72 % had colon cancer. There were favourable changes in dietary behaviours and physical activity in the intervention group; the control group did not show changes to the same extent. The programme did not result in statistically significant differential changes over time between intervention and control group in cancer-related fatigue (0·8; 95 % CI -1·6, 3·2) or HRQoL (1·3; 95 % CI -2·2, 4·8). A person-centred lifestyle programme improved the lifestyle of CRC survivors, but the programme was not effective in reducing cancer-related fatigue or in improving HRQoL.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".