Feasibility of a novel mixed-nutrient supplement in a multimodal prehabilitation intervention for lung cancer patients awaiting surgery: A randomized controlled pilot trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate, in lung cancer patients awaiting elective surgery, the feasibility of delivering a novel four-week multimodal prehabilitation intervention and its effects on preoperative functional capacity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL), compared to standard hospital care. METHODS: Adult patients awaiting elective thoracotomy for lung cancer stages I, II or IIIa, were approached to participate in an open-label, randomized controlled trial of two parallel arms: multimodal prehabilitation combining a mixed-nutrient supplement with structured supervised and home-based exercise training, and relaxation-strategies (Prehab) or standard hospital care (Control). Feasibility was assessed based on recruitment and adherence rates to the intervention and study outcome assessment. Functional capacity, measured by the 6-min walk test (6MWT), and HRQoL were measured at baseline and after four weeks (preoperative). RESULTS: Within 5 months, 34 patients were enrolled and randomized (2:1) to Prehab (n = 24; median age = 67 years) or Control (n = 10; median age = 69 years); recruitment rate of 58.6%. The study was interrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Adherence to the prescribed intensity of the supervised exercise program was 84.1% (SD 23.1). Self-reported adherence to the home-based exercise program was 88.2% (SD 21) and to the nutritional supplement, 93.2% (SD 14.2). Adherence to patients' preoperative assessment was 82% and 88% in Prehab and Control, respectively. The mean adjusted difference in 4-week preoperative 6MWT between groups was 37.7 m (95% CI, -6.1 to 81.4), p = 0.089. There were no differences in HRQoL between groups. CONCLUSION: Within a preoperative timeframe, it was feasible to deliver this novel multimodal prehabilitation intervention in lung cancer patients awaiting surgery.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".