Increased levels of plasma malondialdehyde in Friedreich ataxia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Frailty is a multidimensional syndrome in which multiple small physiological deficits accumulate gradually, resulting in a loss of physiological reserve and adaptability, putting a patient that is exposed to a stressor at a higher risk of adverse outcomes. Both pre-frailty and frailty are associated with poor patient outcomes and higher healthcare costs. The effect of a prehabilitation programme and standard care on the quality of recovery in pre-frail and frail patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery will be compared. Method and analysis A single-centre, superiority, stratified randomised controlled trial with a blinded outcome assessment and intention-to-treat analysis. Pre-frail and frail patients awaiting elective coronary artery bypass graft, with or without valvular repair/replacement, will be recruited. 164 participants will be randomly assigned to either prehabilitation (intervention) or standard care (no intervention) groups. The prehabilitation group will attend two sessions/week of structured exercise (aerobic and resistance) training, supervised by a physiotherapist, for 6–10 weeks before surgery with early health promotion advice in addition to standard care. The standard care group will receive the usual routine care (no prehabilitation). Frailty will be assessed at baseline, hospital admission and at 1 and 3 months after surgery. The primary outcomes will be participants9 perceived quality of recovery (15-item Quality of Recovery questionnaire) after surgery (day 3), days at home within 30 days of surgery and the changes in WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 score between baseline and at 1 and 3 months after surgery. Secondary outcomes will include major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, psychological distress levels, health-related quality of life and healthcare costs. Ethics and dissemination The Joint CUHK-NTEC Clinical Research Ethics Committee approved the study protocol (CREC Ref. No. 2017.696 T). The findings will be presented at scientific meetings, in peer-reviewed journals and to study participants. Trial registration number ChiCTR1800016098; Pre-results.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".