Feasibility of a tailored and virtually supported home exercise program for people with multiple myeloma using a novel eHealth application
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context: Exercise could alleviate significant morbidity in people with multiple myeloma (MM), but current exercise guidelines may not be appropriate for this unique population. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a 12-week home exercise program for people with MM. Methods: A single group pre/post feasibility study was conducted. Participants completed a 12-week virtually-supported home exercise program involving live group classes, independent workouts, and aerobic exercise. Prescriptions were progressed to the 2019 Exercise Guidelines for Cancer Survivors. Participants completed a virtual fitness assessment and questionnaires at baseline (BL) and week 12 (12WK). Results: Twenty-nine participants consented, 26 completed all follow-up testing (89.7%). Adherence was 89.9% (group), 82.7% (independent), and 89.7% (aerobic). No serious adverse events (grade ≥3) occurred. Adverse events involved back pain: grade 1 (n=2), grade 2 (n=1), grade 2/3 (n=1). Significant improvements included quality of life (FACT-MM) [BL: 111±23 vs 12WK: 118±19, p=0.0332], thirty-second sit-to-stand [BL: 13.1±4.5 repetitions vs 12WK: 15.8±4.3 repetitions, p<0.0001], plank hold [BL: 78.3±46.0s vs 12WK: 119.9±73.4s, p=0.0002] and timed single leg stance [BL: 23.1±13.3s vs 12WK: 31.8±12.6s, p=0.0002]. No significant change in median total symptom burden (ESAS) [BL: 10.5, range: 0-43, vs 12WK: 12, range: 0-35, p=0.8193] occurred. Conclusion: The program was feasible and no serious exercise-related adverse occurred. Programs features including supervision, active support, and knowledgeable personnel facilitated feasibility. The findings from this study warrant investigation using a large-scale randomized controlled trial.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".