MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210778309 · doi:10.2196/preprints.10491

Perioperative Optimization With Nutritional Supplements in Patients Undergoing Gastrointestinal Surgery for Cancer (PROGRESS): Protocol for a Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial (Preprint)

2018· preprint· en· W4210778309 on OpenAlexaff
Pablo E. Serrano, Sameer Parpia, Saeda Nair, Leyo Ruo, Marko Šimunović, Oren Levine, Emmanuelle Duceppe, Carol Rodrigues

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEnhanced Recovery After Surgery
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesMcMaster UniversityJuravinski HospitalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalImpactOntario Clinical Oncology Group
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialPerioperativeMalnutritionNutritional SupplementationRandomizationInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<sec> <title>BACKGROUND</title> Postoperative morbidity following gastrointestinal tract major surgery ranges between 40% and 60%. Malnutrition, poor protein intake, and surgery-related impairment of the immune system and its function have been associated with postoperative infections. Supplemental perioperative nutrition may improve nutrition by increasing protein intake to influence cell-mediated immunity, thereby reducing the rate of postoperative infectious complications. </sec> <sec> <title>OBJECTIVE</title> The primary objective of our trial is to determine the proportion of eligible patients randomized in an 18-month period. The primary feasibility outcome will be to (1) stop, main study not feasible: estimated proportion of randomized patients &lt;40.0% (40/100); (2) continue with protocol modifications: estimated proportion of randomized patients 40.0% (40/100) to 59.0% (50/100); or (3) continue without modification: estimated proportion of randomized patients ≥60.0% (60/100). The secondary objectives are to evaluate compliance with the nutritional supplements and to estimate differences in postoperative complications, global health-related quality of life (QoL), and median length of hospital stay between the groups. </sec> <sec> <title>METHODS</title> This is a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled feasibility trial. The intervention comprises three nutritional supplements: a protein isolate powder (ISOlution); immunomodulation (INergy-FLD), formulated liquid diet; and carbohydrate loading (PreCovery). Patients will consume 1 serving of the protein supplement per day from the randomization time up to 6 days before surgery (30 days in total). The immunomodulation, a solution that contains arginine, protein isolate, omega-6 fatty acids, and RNA, aims to attenuate excessive inflammatory responses and to replenish nutrients. This solution will be consumed as 3 doses per day for 5 days before and after surgery. Carbohydrate loading helps to reduce the stress from surgery by decreasing insulin resistance. Patients will have 2 servings the evening before surgery and 1 serving 2-3 hours before surgery. To be eligible, patients must have a resectable gastrointestinal cancer for which an elective operation is planned. Patients will be stratified according to nutritional status. The operation should occur within 4 weeks from enrollment. </sec> <sec> <title>RESULTS</title> We expect to screen 165 eligible patients; 60.6% (100/165) of them will be randomized to either intervention or placebo. Assuming a two-sided alpha of .05, this will give us a 95% CI around the estimate of 53%-68%. A sample size of 50 per group will enable us to estimate the treatment effect and corresponding variance of the complication rate and QoL measures with adequate precision. The success is defined as the proportion of eligible patients randomized as ≥60.0% (60/100). Patients’ compliance is defined as an intake of at least 70% (41/58) sachets of the intervention volume. </sec> <sec> <title>CONCLUSIONS</title> The results will help to determine the feasibility of a larger randomized controlled trial to implement a perioperative nutritional supplement program for patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery for cancer. </sec> <sec> <title>CLINICALTRIAL</title> ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03445260; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03445260 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/72CAmMzgP) </sec> <sec> <title>INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPOR</title> PRR1-10.2196/10491 </sec>

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.129
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.313 · 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.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnhanced Recovery After SurgeryFrench-language works237,207