MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3088260237 · doi:10.1097/eja.0000000000001215

Effect of two different pre-operative exercise training regimens before colorectal surgery on functional capacity

2020· article· en· W3088260237 on OpenAlexaff
Enrico Maria Minnella, Vanessa Ferreira, Rashami Awasthi, Patrick Charlebois, Barry Stein, A. Sender Liberman, Celena Scheede‐Bergdahl, José A. Morais, Francesco Carli

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Anaesthesiology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEnhanced Recovery After Surgery
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMontreal General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrehabilitationMedicinePhysical therapyHigh-intensity interval trainingColorectal surgeryContinuous trainingAnaerobic exerciseAnxietyPsychological interventionFunctional trainingSurgeryAbdominal surgeryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Multimodal prehabilitation, including exercise training, nutritional therapy and anxiety reduction, has been shown to attenuate functional decline associated with surgery. Due to the growing interest in functional status as a targeted surgical outcome, a better understanding of the optimal prescription of exercise is critical. OBJECTIVE: The objective is to compare peri-operative functional trajectory in response to two different exercise training protocols within a 4-week, supervised, multimodal prehabilitation programme. DESIGN: This was a single blinded, single centre, randomised controlled study. Participants performed four assessments: at baseline, after prehabilitation (just before surgery), and at 1 and 2 months after surgery. PATIENTS: Adult patients scheduled for elective resection of nonmetastatic colorectal cancer were included provided there were no absolute contraindications to exercise nor poor language comprehension. INTERVENTION: Patients followed either high-intensity interval training (HIIT), or moderate intensity continuous training (MICT), as part of a 4-week multimodal prehabilitation programme. Both groups followed the same supervised resistance training, nutritional therapy and anxiety reduction interventions. All patients followed standardised peri-operative management. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Changes in oxygen consumption at anaerobic threshold, measured with sequential cardio-pulmonary exercise testing, were assessed and compared between groups. RESULTS: Forty two patients were included in the primary analysis (HIIT n = 21 vs. MICT n = 21), with mean ± SD age 64.5 ± 11.2 years and 62% were men. At 2 months after surgery, 13/21 (62%) in HIIT and 11/21 (52%) in MICT attended the study visits. Both protocols significantly enhanced pre-operative functional capacity, with no difference between groups: mean (95% confidence interval) oxygen consumption at anaerobic threshold 1.97 (0.75 to 3.19) ml kg min in HIIT vs. 1.71 (0.56 to 2.85) in MICT, P = 0.753. At 2 months after surgery, the HIIT group showed a higher improvement in physical fitness: 2.36 (0.378 to 4.34) ml kg min, P = 0.021. No adverse events occurred during the intervention. CONCLUSION: Both MICT and HIIT enhanced pre-operative functional capacity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03361150.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations80
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of AnaesthesiologySame topicEnhanced Recovery After SurgeryFrench-language works237,207