Evaluation of supervised multimodal prehabilitation programme in cancer patients undergoing colorectal resection: a randomized control trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".