Effects of probiotics on gastrointestinal complications and nutritional status of postoperative patients with esophageal cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal complications and malnutrition are common problems that affect postoperative rehabilitation and survival of patients with esophageal cancer. Evidence has shown that probiotics have a positive effect on improving gastrointestinal complications and nutritional status of patients with esophageal cancer after surgery, but there is a lack of prospective studies on this topic. We designed this prospective randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effects of probiotics on gastrointestinal complications and nutritional status in patients with postoperative esophageal cancer. METHODS: This is a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. It was approved by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of our hospital. 192 patients will be randomly divided into probiotics group and the placebo group in a 1:1 ratio. After operation, probiotics and placebo will be given orally for 8 weeks. The indexes of nutritional status and incidence of digestive tract complications will be recorded and the data will be analyzed by SPSS 18.0 software. DISCUSSION: This study will evaluate the effect of probiotics on gastrointestinal complications and nutritional status of postoperative patients with esophageal cancer. The results of this study will provide clinical basis for the use of probiotics in postoperative treatment of esophageal cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: OSF Registration number: D DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/QHW86.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".