MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2907050778 · doi:10.1111/anae.14505

Multi‐modal prehabilitation: addressing the why, when, what, how, who and where next?

2019· review· en· W2907050778 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

VenueAnaesthesia · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health CentreMontreal General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrehabilitationMedicineStimulus (psychology)ModalPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyCognitive psychologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Just as there is growing interest in enhancing recovery after surgery, prehabilitation is becoming a recognised means of preparing the patient physically for their operation and/or subsequent treatment. Exercise training is an important stimulus for improving low cardiovascular fitness and preserving lean muscle mass, which are critical factors in how well the patient recovers from surgery. Despite the usual focus on exercise, it is important to recognise the contribution of nutritional optimisation and psychological wellbeing for both the adherence and the response to the physical training stimulus. This article reviews the importance of a multi-modal approach to prehabilitation in order to maximise its impact in the pre-surgical period, as well as critical future steps in its development and integration in the healthcare system.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.246
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.169 · 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