MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4283374556 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1605755/v1

Adherence to combined exercise and dietary intervention in patients with gastrointestinal cancer undergoing neo-adjuvant therapy: an open-label, pilot, randomized controlled trial.

2022· preprint· en· W4283374556 on OpenAlexaff
S. Velho, S. Moço, Carolina Capitão, Mariana P. Branco, Luísa Leal da Costa, Sílvia Rodrigues, Cláudia Buhamra Abreu, Filipa Soares Pires, Pedro Sousa, Lisa Agostinho, Rita Cruz, Susana Clemente, Ana Borges, Fábio Lopes, João Godinho, Ana Faria, José Alberto Teixeira, José Luís Passos Coelho, Rui Maio, Vickie E. Baracos, Marília Cravo

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialOpen labelPhysical therapyGastrointestinal cancerIntervention (counseling)Adjuvant therapyExercise therapyCancerPilot trialInternal medicineColorectal cancerNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BackgroundTo assess adherence of gastrointestinal cancer patients to a Combined Exercise and Dietary Intervention (CEDI) during neo-adjuvant chemotherapy.MethodsParallel randomized controlled, open label, pilot trial. A table from a web based randomization system was used to allocate treatments. 46 patients were screened at diagnosis of esophageal, gastric, pancreatic and rectal cancer from June 2018 to November 2019 at a teaching hospital in Loures, 39 were randomized. A planned interim analysis was performed and results are herein presented. Patients were randomized to receive either 8 week individualized CEDI, with moderate aerobic and resistance training, dietary counseling and oral nutritional supplements or standard care. Follow up was conducted after neo-adjuvant treatment. Main outcome measures were adherence to CEDI, change in weight, body composition and functional status. Adherence to CEDI was analyzed with an intention to treat approach, other outcome measures were analyzed with a per protocol approach. Data analysis was conducted with Chi-square test or Fisher exact test and t-test or Mann Whitney U test. Effect size was computed with Cohen’s d for t tests and r for Mann-Whitney U tests. Paired-samples t test or Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test were used to analyze longitudinal data.Results39 patients (CEDI n = 19 or control n = 20) were randomized and included in the intention to treat analysis (29 (74.3%) male, median age 63.5 (Interquartile Range (IQR):11.75)). 32 patients completed follow up. 13/19 (68.4%) were fully adherent to CEDI. CEDI patients maintained weight (Effect size (EF):0.457; 95% Confidence Interval (95%CI): [0.44,0.46]), waist circumference (EF:-0.56, 95%CI: [-1.08, -0.034]), had a lower skeletal muscle loss (EF:-0.79; [-1.77;0.18]) and improved 6 minute walking test distance (EF:-1.51; 95%CI: [-2.57;-0.44]) and quality of life function score (EF:0.45; 95%CI:[0.43,0.45]). There were 4 serious adverse events, 3 in theintervention and 1 in the control arm but none related to the intervention.ConclusionsCEDI is feasible and patients are willing to participate even under neo-adjuvant chemoradiotherapy, resulting in potential nutritional and functional benefits.Trial registrationTrial registry: www.clinicaltrials.gov; Identifier: NCT05237921, 14-2-22, retrospectively registered, https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=&term=NCT05237921&cntry=&state=&city=&dist=

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.169
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Square→Same topicNutrition and Health in Aging→French-language works237,207→