Effects of quadriceps muscle neuromuscular electrical stimulation in living donor liver transplant recipients: phase-II single-blinded randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of neuromuscular electrical stimulation on quadriceps muscle strength and thickness in liver transplantation patients. DESIGN: Phase-II, randomized, parallel-group, allocation-concealed, assessor-blinded, single-center controlled trial. SETTING: Inpatient rehabilitation sector. SUBJECTS: Patients following living donor liver transplantation. INTERVENTIONS: The quadriceps muscle stimulation and the control groups received bilateral muscle electrical stimulation on the quadriceps and tibialis anterior muscles, respectively. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation sessions in both groups were conducted for 30 minutes per session, once per day for five weekdays over four weeks by a physical therapist. MAIN MEASURES: Quadriceps muscle strength and quadriceps muscle thickness. RESULTS: Neuromuscular electrical stimulation was applied to the quadriceps muscles group ( n = 23) or the tibialis anterior muscle in the control group ( n = 22). The decrease in quadriceps muscle thickness differed significantly between both groups on postoperative day 30 (median -3 vs -8, P < 0.01). The changes in predicted quadriceps strength and 6 minutes walking distance were not significantly different between groups (quadriceps strength median -12% vs -5%, P = 0.40; 6 minutes walking distance median -18 vs -21 m, P = 0.74). CONCLUSION: Neuromuscular electrical stimulation of the quadriceps muscle for liver transplantation recipients was able to maintain the quadriceps muscle thickness after surgery. Future larger scale studies are needed to consider the effectiveness of neuromuscular electrical stimulation and how to incorporate this intervention in the overall strategy of the physical therapy program.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".