MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6941064673 · doi:10.11575/prism/3698

Yoga for prostate cancer survivors

2010· other· en· W6941064673 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePRISM (University of Calgary) · 2010
Typeother
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnalysis of varianceQuality of life (healthcare)Prostate cancerRepeated measures designDescriptive statisticsCancerCancer survivorDemographics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prostate cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer among Canadian men, and in earlier stages of the disease has effective treatment modalities.As a result, the number of cancer survivors is increasing, shifting cancer research to focus on improving quality of life during survivorship.Physical activity is receiving an increasing amount of attention as it has been proven to be a significant supportive care management strategy for prostate cancer survivors throughout survivorship.The purpose of this study was to assess the physical and psychological benefits of a yoga therapy program.The prostate cancer survivors in the current research study noted acute benefits of yoga including decreased fatigue, decreased stress and increased mood.Support persons involved in the program also showed significant benefits. .4.1.3Scale Reliability 4.1.3.1 Quality of Life 4.1.3.2Fatigue 4.1.3.3TPB4.2 Descriptive Statistics 4.2.1 Recruitment 4.2.1.1Drop-out Rates 4.2.2Participant Demographics 4.2.3Prostate Cancer Survivor Medical History 4.2.3.1 Yoga Class Group Comparisons 4.2.3.2PC Survivor Comparisons 4.2.3.3Support Person Comparisons 4.3 Physical Activity Behaviour 4.3.1 PC Survivors 4.3.1.1LSI Pre-intervention 4.3.1.2LSI Post-intervention 4.3.1.3LSI Follow-up 4.3.1.4LSI ANOVA 4.3.1.5Yoga Program Adherence 4.3.1.6Maintenance Phase Activity Calendars 4.3.2Support Persons 4.3.2.1 LSI Pre-intervention 4.3.2.2 LSI Post-intervention vii 4.3.2.3 LSI Follow-up 4.3.2.4 LSI ANOVA 4.3.2.5 Yoga Program Adherence 4.3.2.6 Maintenance Phase Activity Calendars 4.4 Quality of Life 4.4.1 PC Survivors 4.4.1.1FACT Pre-intervention 4.4.1.2FACT Post-intervention 4.4.1.3FACT Follow-up 4.4.1.4FACT ANOVA 4.4.2Support Persons 4.4.2.1 SF-12 ANOVA 4.5 Fatigue 4.5.1 PC Survivors 4.5.1.1FACT-F ANOVA 4.5.2Support Persons 4.5.2.1 FSS ANOVA 4.6 Perceived Social Support 4.7 In-class Thermometer Ratings 4.7.1 PC Survivors 4.7.2Support Persons 4.8 Fitness Assessment 4.8.1 Pre-screening Measurements 4.8.2Anthropometric Measurements 4.8.3Strength Measurements 4.8.4Flexibility 4.8.5 Functional Aerobic Capacity 4.9 Impact of Social Support 4.9.1 Adherence Levels 4.9.2Maintenance levels 4.9.3Perceived Social Support 4.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.229
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0510.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.180 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePRISM (University of Calgary)Same topicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant InteractionsFrench-language works237,207