Impact of a Preoperative Exercise Program on General Fitness in Patients Awaiting Bariatric Surgery: A Pilot Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Evidence supports the association between exercise and outcomes following bariatric surgery. However, there is a lack of knowledge regarding the short-term benefits of preoperative exercise. Objectives The objective of this pilot study was to evaluate the feasibility and functional benefits of a 12-week preoperative exercise program in patients awaiting bariatric surgery. The primary aim was the six-minute walk test (6MWT). The secondary aim of this study included anthropometric measures, strength, and quality of life. Methods A total of 54 patients were enrolled in this pilot randomized controlled study. Of them, 29 patients received standard multidisciplinary preoperative care, while 25 patients participated in a 12-week supervised exercise program in addition to standard preoperative care consisting of strength and aerobic exercises three times per week in a fitness facility. The primary outcome was improvement in 6MWT. Secondary outcomes included other functional outcomes, quality of life, and anthropometric measures. Results Average attendance for the intervention group was 27.2 (75.6%) of 36 sessions. There was a mean improvement of 27 ± 10 meters in the intervention group compared with a reduction of 5 ± 10 meters in the control group (p = 0.003). Patients in the intervention group had significant improvement in all self-reported quality-of-life domains, particularly in the variables related to symptoms, hygiene, and emotions. Conclusions A 12-week preoperative exercise intervention was feasible and showed association with a statistically significant improvement in 6MWT and quality-of-life measures in patients awaiting bariatric surgery. The results of this study will inform sample size calculations and recruitment planning for a future study that will assess the longer-term benefits of a pre-surgical fitness intervention.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".