MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2783186236 · doi:10.1080/0284186x.2017.1423180

Evaluation of supervised multimodal prehabilitation programme in cancer patients undergoing colorectal resection: a randomized control trial

2018· article· en· W2783186236 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Oncologica · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityConcordia UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePrehabilitationRandomized controlled trialColorectal cancerResectionCancerSurgeryPhysical therapyOncologyGeneral surgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Prehabilitation has been previously shown to be more effective in enhancing postoperative functional capacity than rehabilitation alone. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a weekly supervised exercise session could provide further benefit to our current prehabilition program, when comparing to standard post-surgical rehabilitation.Methods: A parallel-arm single-blind randomized control trial was conducted in patients scheduled for non-metastatic colorectal cancer resection. Patients were assigned to either a once weekly supervised prehabilitation (PREHAB+, n = 41) or standard rehabilitation (REHAB, n = 39) program. Both multimodal programs were home-based program and consisted of moderate intensity aerobic and resistance exercise, nutrition counseling with daily whey protein supplementation and anxiety-reduction strategies. Perioperative care was standardized for both groups as per enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS®) guidelines. Functional exercise capacity, as determined by the 6-minute walk test distance (6MWD), was the primary outcome. Exercise quantity, intensity and energy expenditure was determined by the CHAMPS questionnaire.Results: Both groups were comparable for baseline walking capacity (PREHAB+: 448 m [IQR 375–525] vs. REHAB: 461 m [419–556], p=.775) and included a similar proportion of patients who improved walking capacity (>20 m) during the preoperative period (PREHAB+: 54% vs. REHAB: 38%, p = .222). After surgery, changes in 6MWD were also similar in both groups. In PREHAB+, however, there was a significant association between physical activity energy expenditure and 6MWD (p < .01). Previously inactive patients were more likely to improve functional capacity due to PREHAB+ (OR 7.07 [95% CI 1.10–45.51]).Conclusions: The addition of a weekly supervised exercise session to our current prehabilitation program did not further enhance postoperative walking capacity when compared to standard REHAB care. Sedentary patients, however, seemed more likely to benefit from PREHAB+. An association was found between energy spent in physical activity and 6MWD. This information is important to consider when designing cost-effective prehabilitation programs.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.881

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.309 · 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