Associations of Breast Cancer Treatments with One-Year Changes in Health-Related Fitness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Early-stage breast cancer treatments adversely affect components of health-related fitness (HRF) important for treatment tolerability, recovery, and long-term outcomes. Few studies have examined cancer treatment modality-specific effects on HRF. We examined associations of breast cancer treatment modalities, regimens, and combinations with one-year changes in HRF. Methods: Newly diagnosed early-stage breast cancer patients were recruited between 2012 and 2019 for the Alberta Moving Beyond Breast Cancer (AMBER) cohort study. HRF assessments were completed within 90 days of diagnosis and at one year, including cardiorespiratory fitness, muscle strength and endurance, and body composition. Analysis of covariance was used to test whether HRF changes differed between treatment modalities, regimens, and combinations. All tests were 2-sided. Results: A total of 1350 participants (mean [SD] age, 55.6 [10.7] years) were included. Women who received chemotherapy (n = 797; 59%) experienced statistically significant smaller increases in upper body strength (−1.7 kg, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −3.0 to −0.5), greater declines in lower body endurance (−118.0 kg, 95%CI: −216.6 to −19.3), and greater declines in total lean mass (−0.7 kg, 95%CI: −1.1 to −0.3), bone mineral density (−0.01 g/cm2, 95%CI: −0.02 to 0.00), and bone mineral content (0.04 kg, 95%CI: −0.06 to −0.02). Other treatment modalities were modestly and inconsistently associated with HRF changes. Treatment combinations that included chemotherapy had the most negative impact on cardiorespiratory fitness and body composition. Conclusions: Chemotherapy—either alone or in combination with other treatments—had the largest and broadest negative impact on HRF recovery in early-stage breast cancer at one-year follow-up.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".