MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3171362352 · doi:10.1080/0284186x.2021.1937307

Functional capacity of prediabetic patients: effect of multimodal prehabilitation in patients undergoing colorectal cancer resection

2021· article· en· W3171362352 on OpenAlexafffund
Katherine Chabot, Chelsia Gillis, Enrico Maria Minnella, Vanessa Ferreira, Rashami Awasthi, Gabriele Baldini, Francesco Carli

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Oncologica · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersFondation de l'Hôpital Général de Montréal
KeywordsPrehabilitationMedicinePrediabetesGlycemicInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialColorectal cancerConfoundingDiabetes mellitusOncologySurgeryCancerPhysical therapyType 2 diabetesInsulinEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Prehabilitation is the process of increasing functional capacity (FC) before surgery. Poor glycemic control is associated with worse outcomes in patients undergoing surgery. Therefore, prediabetic patients could particularly benefit from prehabilitation.Methods This is a pooled analysis of individual patient data from three multimodal prehabilitation trials in colorectal cancer surgery. Following a baseline assessment using the 6-minute walking test (6MWT), subjects were randomized to multimodal prehabilitation or to a control group. Participants were reassessed 24 h before surgery and 4 weeks after surgery. Prediabetes (PreDM) was defined as HbA1c 5.7%–6.4%. Multivariable logistic regression was used to adjust for potentially confounding variables.Results Participation in a prehabilitation program was the most important predictive factor of clinical improvement in FC prior to surgery (Adjusted OR 2.42, 95% CI 1.18, 4.94); prediabetes was not a statistically significant predictor of improvement in FC after adjustments for covariates. Prehabilitation attenuated the loss of FC in unadjusted analyses after surgery in prediabetic patients (PreDM Control: median change −6 m [IQR −50–20] vs PreDM Prehab: median change +25 m [IQR −20–53], p = 0.045). Adjusted analyses also suggested the protective effect against loss of FC after surgery was stronger in prediabetic patients (PreDM Prehab vs PreDM Control: OR 5.5, 95% CI: 1.2–25.8; Normo Prehab vs Normo Control: OR 1.5, 95% CI: 0.53–4.52).Conclusions Multimodal prehabilitation favored clinical recovery of FC after surgery in CRC patients, especially prediabetic patients.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.303

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa OncologicaSame topicNutrition and Health in AgingFrench-language works237,207