“In the tube” following sternotomy: A quasi-experimental study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Traditionally, physical movement has been limited for cardiac surgery patients, up to 12-weeks post-operatively. Patients are asked to use "standard sternal precautions," restricting their arm movement, and thereby limiting stress on the healing sternum. AIM: To compare return to function, pain/discomfort, wound healing, use of pain medication and antibiotics, and post-operative length of hospital stay in cardiac surgery patients having median sternotomy who used standard sternal precautions or Keep Your Move in the Tube movement protocols post-operatively. METHODS: A quasi-experimental design was used (100 standard sternal precautions and 100 Keep Your Move in the Tube patients). Patients were followed in person or by telephone over a period of 12-weeks postoperatively. Outcomes were measured at day 7, as well as weeks 4, 8, and 12 weeks. RESULTS: The majority of participants (77% in each group) were male and had coronary artery bypass graft surgery (66% standard sternal precautions and 72% Keep Your Move in the Tube). Univariate analysis revealed the standard sternal precautions group had lesser ability to return to functional activities than the Keep Your Move in the Tube group (p<0.0001) over time. This difference was minimized however, by week 12. Multivariate analysis revealed that increasing age, body mass index, and female sex were associated with greater functional impairment over time, but no difference between standard sternal precautions and Keep Your Move in the Tube groups. CONCLUSIONS: Keep Your Move in the Tube, a novel patient-oriented movement protocol, has potential for cardiac surgery patients to be more confident and comfortable in their recovery.
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 | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".