PREPARE trial: a protocol for a multicentre randomised trial of frailty-focused preoperative exercise to decrease postoperative complication rates and disability scores
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Frailty is a strong predictor of adverse postoperative outcomes. Prehabilitation may improve outcomes after surgery for older people with frailty by addressing physical and physiologic deficits. The objective of this trial is to evaluate the efficacy of home-based multimodal prehabilitation in decreasing patient-reported disability and postoperative complications in older people with frailty having major surgery. Methods and analysis We will conduct a multicentre, randomised controlled trial of home-based prehabilitation versus standard care among consenting patients >60 years with frailty (Clinical Frailty Scale>4) having elective inpatient major non-cardiac, non-neurologic or non-orthopaedic surgery. Patients will be partially blinded; clinicians and outcome assessors will be fully blinded. The intervention consists of >3 weeks of prehabilitation (exercise (strength, aerobic and stretching) and nutrition (advice and protein supplementation)). The study has two primary outcomes: in-hospital complications and patient-reported disability 30 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes include survival, lower limb function, quality of life and resource utilisation. A sample size of 750 participants (375 per arm) provides >90% power to detect a minimally important absolute difference of 8 on the 100-point patient-reported disability scale and a 25% relative risk reduction in complications, using a two-sided alpha value of 0.025 to account for the two primary outcomes. Analyses will follow intention to treat principles for all randomised participants. All participants will be followed to either death or up to 1 year. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval has been granted by Clinical Trials Ontario (Project ID: 1785) and our ethics review board (Protocol Approval #20190409-01T). Results will be disseminated through presentation at scientific conferences, through peer-reviewed publication, stakeholder organisations and engagement of social and traditional media. Trial registration number NCT04221295 .
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 | 0.051 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.123 | 0.021 |
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".