Fatigue, physical activity, physical functioning and quality of life in older adults with cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cancer is predominantly a disease affecting older persons. 43% of new cancer cases in Canada occur among those who are at least 70 years old, while 25% occur in those aged 60--69 years. Cancer fatigue is the most common symptom associated with cancer and its treatment, and is often the most distressing symptom reported by cancer patients. Cancer fatigue adversely affects physical activity levels, physical function, and quality of life. Physical function is essential to older adults in maintaining independence and associated quality of life which is often more important to older adults than cancer survival. Recent research studies suggest that physical activity may reduce fatigue, and maintain or improve physical function levels and quality of life in cancer patients during and following treatment. This thesis examines cancer fatigue and its relationship to physical activity, physical function, and quality of life in older adults with cancer. The results of a systematic review and the findings of a secondary analysis research study are presented. The systematic review provided evidence that physical activity may reduce fatigue in older cancer patients during and after cancer treatment and may help to maintain or improve physical function and quality of life in this population. Results of the secondary analysis indicated that cancer fatigue is prevalent and was the most frequently reported symptom at baseline, three months and six months post consultation for cancer treatment. Cancer fatigue was associated with lower levels of physical function and quality of life. Physical activity, a modifiable factor, was found to be significantly related to cancer fatigue at three months and six months, regardless of age, and was significantly related to physical function at six months.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".