Evaluation of a physiatrist-directed prehabilitation intervention in frail patients with colorectal cancer: a randomised pilot study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Prehabilitation interventions have shown efficacy in the orthopaedic and cardiothoracic surgical populations, but there has been limited evidence for general surgical patients. We present the protocol for a pilot trial of a novel prehabilitation intervention, consisting of a physiatrist-directed preoperative assessment and treatment programme. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a single-centre pilot randomised controlled trial investigating physiatrist-directed prehabilitation for a 4 to 6-week preoperative period. We will block randomise 40-50 participants awaiting surgery for colorectal cancer to prehabilitation versus control. Participants in the prehabilitation arm will undergo assessment by a physiatrist and enrol in a supervised exercise programme. The control group will not undergo any prehabilitation interventions in the preoperative period. Our primary outcome is feasibility, measured by examining recruitment, refusal, retention and adherence rates as well as participant satisfaction and feedback. Secondary outcomes include physical fitness, functional ability, health-related quality of life, postoperative complications, mortality, readmissions, length of stay, prehabilitation interventions performed and exercise complications. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board (HIREB reference number 2015-0090-GRA). The results of this pilot study will be used to design a full-scale study and published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02531620; 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 | 0.036 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.056 | 0.009 |
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".