Multimodal prehabilitation in colorectal cancer patients to improve functional capacity and reduce postoperative complications: the first international randomized controlled trial for multimodal prehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most prevalent type of cancer in the world. Surgery is the only curative option. However, postoperative complications occur in up to 50% of patients and are associated with higher morbidity and mortality rates, lower health related quality of life (HRQoL) and increased expenditure in health care. The number and severity of complications are closely related to preoperative functional capacity, nutritional state, psychological state, and smoking behavior. Traditional approaches have targeted the postoperative period for rehabilitation and lifestyle changes. However, recent evidence shows that the preoperative period might be the optimal moment for intervention. This study will determine the impact of multimodal prehabilitation on patients' functional capacity and postoperative complications. METHODS/DESIGN: This international multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial will include 714 patients undergoing colorectal surgery for cancer. Patients will be allocated to the intervention group, which will receive 4 weeks of prehabilitation (group 1, prehab), or the control group, which will receive no prehabilitation (group 2, no prehab). Both groups will receive perioperative care in accordance with the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) guidelines. The primary outcomes for measurement will be functional capacity (as assessed using the six-minute walk test (6MWT)) and postoperative status determined with the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI). Secondary outcomes will include HRQoL, length of hospital stay (LOS) and a cost-effectiveness analysis. DISCUSSION: Multimodal prehabilitation is expected to enhance patients' functional capacity and to reduce postoperative complications. It may therefore result in increased survival and improved HRQoL. This is the first international multicenter study investigating multimodal prehabilitation for patients undergoing colorectal surgery for cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial Registry: NTR5947 - date of registration: 1 August 2016.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".