Dose-response effects of aerobic exercise on quality of life in postmenopausal women: Results from the Breast Cancer and Exercise Trial in Alberta (BETA)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Exercise generally improves quality of life (QoL) and psychosocial functioning in adult populations but few randomized trials have examined dose-response effects. Purpose: The purpose of the present study was to report the QoL and psychosocial outcomes from the Breast Cancer and Exercise Trial in Alberta (BETA). Methods: Healthy but inactive postmenopausal women at risk for breast cancer were randomized to a year-long aerobic exercise intervention consisting of either 150 min/week (moderate volume group, n = 200) or 300 min/week (high volume group, n = 200). QoL was assessed at baseline and 1 year using the short form-36 health survey. Sleep quality, depression, anxiety, stress, self-esteem, and happiness were also assessed. Participant preference for group assignment (i.e., exercise volume) was assessed at baseline and tested as a moderator. Results: There were no statistically significant dose-response effects of aerobic exercise on any QoL, sleep quality, or psychosocial outcome. Participant preference for group assignment did not moderate any QoL, sleep quality, or psychosocial responses. Marital status was a significant moderator (p for interaction = 0.01) and obesity showed a trend towards being a moderator (p for interaction = 0.08) of the dose-response effects of aerobic exercise on global sleep quality such that unmarried and obese women improved sleep quality with the higher volume of aerobic exercise. Conclusions: A higher volume of aerobic exercise, approximately double the minimum public health guideline, did not provide additional QoL or psychosocial benefits compared to the minimum public health guideline in inactive postmenopausal women, even for women who preferred the higher volume of exercise at baseline. Trial Registration: Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT1435005.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".