Postoperative inpatient exercise facilitates recovery after laparoscopic surgery in colorectal cancer patients: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose The primary objective was to determine the efficacy of a postoperative exercise program on postsurgical recovery of stage I–III colorectal cancer patients. Method We randomly allocated participants to postoperative exercise or usual care (1:1 ratio). The postoperative exercise intervention consisted of 15 minutes of supervised exercise two times per day for the duration of their hospital stay. The primary outcome was the length of stay (LOS) at the tertiary care center. Secondary outcomes included patient-perceived readiness for hospital discharge, anthropometrics (e.g., muscle mass), and physical function (e.g., balance, strength). Results A total of 52 (83%) participants (mean [SD] age, 56.6 [8.9] years; 23 [44%] male) completed the trial. The median LOS was 6.0 days (interquartile range; IQR 5–7 days) in the exercise group and 6.5 days (IQR 6–7 days) in the usual-care group (P = 0.021). The exercise group met the targeted LOS 64% of the time, while 36% of the usual care group met the targeted LOS (colon cancer, 5 days; rectal cancer, 7 days). Participants in the exercise group felt greater readiness for discharge from the hospital than those in the usual care group (Adjusted group difference = 14.4; 95% CI, 6.2 to 22.6; P < 0.01). We observed a small but statistically significant increase in muscle mass in the exercise group compared to usual care (Adjusted group difference = 0.63 kg; 95% CI, 0.16 to 1.1; P = 0.03). Conclusion Postsurgical inpatient exercise may promote faster recovery and discharge after curative colorectal cancer 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".