Supervised exercise training with multimodal pre‐habilitation leads to earlier functional recovery following colorectal cancer resection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Exercise training is a component of the pre-habilitation program. While in one previous study the training was home-based, in a subsequent investigation it was supervised in hospital. The hypothesis of this secondary analysis of the two studies was to determine whether supervised exercise further accelerates the return to baseline walking ability. METHODS: Data from two consecutive randomized control trials (RCT) comparing pre-habilitation to the rehabilitation of cancer patients scheduled for colorectal surgery were pooled for analysis. The interventions were similar and included home-based exercise training, nutritional counseling and protein supplementation, and relaxation techniques administered either before surgery (pre-habilitation) or after surgery (rehabilitation). Patients in the second RCT received additional supervised exercise sessions. Functional capacity was assessed with the 6-minute walk test (6 MWT) at baseline, before surgery, and at 4 and 8 weeks after surgery. Adjusted logistic regression was used to determine the improvement of the 6-minute walk distance (6MWD). RESULTS: Baseline mean 6MWD of 63 patients in the supervised group was 465.1 m (SD, 115), and that of 77 patients in the nonsupervised group was 407.8 m (SD, 109) (P < 0.01). Perioperative supervised exercise training enhanced further functional capacity and muscle strength when compared with the nonsupervised group (P < 0.01). Those receiving exercise supervision had over two times higher chances to return to baseline after surgery. Supervised pre-habilitation was the best combination (4 weeks OR = 7.71, and at 8 weeks OR = 8.62). CONCLUSION: Supervised exercise training leads to meaningful changes in functional capacity thus accelerating the postoperative return to baseline activities.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".