MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2803521616 · doi:10.2196/resprot.8607

Applicability of a Web-Based, Individualized Exercise Intervention in Patients With Liver Disease, Cystic Fibrosis, Esophageal Cancer, and Psychiatric Disorders: Process Evaluation of 4 Ongoing Clinical Trials

2018· article· en· W2803521616 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Daniel Pfirrmann, Nils Haller, Yvonne Huber, Patrick Jung, Klaus Lieb, Ines Gockel, Krystyna Poplawska, Jörn M. Schattenberg, Perikles Simon

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersVertex Pharmaceuticals
KeywordsMedicinePopulationPhysical therapyNonalcoholic fatty liver diseaseContext (archaeology)Clinical trialPsychological interventionPerioperativeDiseaseInternal medicineFatty liverSurgeryPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In the primary and secondary prevention of civilization diseases, regular physical activity is recommended in international guidelines to improve disease-related symptoms, delay the progression of the disease, or to enhance postoperative outcomes. In the preoperative context, there has been a paradigm shift in favor of using preconditioning concepts before surgery. Web-based interventions seem an innovative and effective tool for delivering general information, individualized exercise recommendations, and peer support. OBJECTIVE: Our first objective was to assess feasibility of our Web-based interventional concept and analyze similarities and differences in a sustained exercise implementation in different diseases. The second objective was to investigate the overall participants' satisfaction with our Web-based concept. METHODS: A total of 4 clinical trials are still being carried out, including patients with esophageal carcinoma scheduled for oncologic esophagectomy (internet-based perioperative exercise program, iPEP, study), nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (hepatic inflammation and physical performance in patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, HELP, study), depression (exercise for depression, EXDEP, study), and cystic fibrosis (cystic fibrosis online mentoring for microbiome, exercise, and diet, COMMED, study). During the intervention period, the study population had access to the website with disease-specific content and a disease-specific discussion forum. All participants received weekly, individual tailored exercise recommendations from the sports therapist. The main outcome was the using behavior, which was obtained by investigating the log-in rate and duration. RESULTS: A total of 20 participants (5 from each trial) were analyzed. During the intervention period, a regular contact and a consequent implementation of exercise prescription were easily achieved in all substudies. Across the 4 substudies, there was a significant decrease in log-in rates (P<.001) and log-in durations (P<.001) over time. A detailed view of the different studies shows a significant decrease in log-in rates and log-in durations in the HELP study (P=.004; P=.002) and iPEP study (P=.02; P=.001), whereas the EXDEP study (P=.58; P=.38) and COMMED study (P=.87; P=.56) showed no significant change over the 8-week intervention period. There was no significant change in physical activity within all studies (P=.31). Only in the HELP study, the physical activity level increased steadily over the period analyzed (P=.045). Overall, 17 participants (85%, 17/20) felt secure and were not scared of injury, with no major differences in the subtrials. CONCLUSIONS: The universal use of the Web-based intervention appears to be applicable across the heterogonous collectives of our study patients with regard to age and disease. Although the development of physical activity shows only moderate improvements, flexible communication and tailored support could be easily integrated into patients' daily routine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: iPEP study: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02478996; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02478996 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6zL1UmHaW); HELP study: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02526732; http://www.webcitation.org/6zJjX7d6K (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6Nch4ldcL); EXDEP study: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02874833; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02874833 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6zJjj7FuA).

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 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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.142
Threshold uncertainty score0.528

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.199
GPT teacher head0.583
Teacher spread0.384 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicEsophageal Cancer Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207