Preoperative Nutritional Optimization and Physical Exercise for Patients Scheduled for Elective Implantation for a Left-Ventricular Assist Device—The PROPER-LVAD Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Prehabilitation is gaining increasing interest and shows promising effects on short- and long-term outcomes among patients undergoing major surgery. The effect of multimodal, interdisciplinary prehabilitation has not yet been studied in patients with severe heart failure scheduled for the implantation of a left-ventricular assist device (LVAD). Methods: This randomized controlled multi-center study evaluates the effect of preoperative combined optimization of nutritional and functional status. Patients in the intervention group are prescribed daily in-bed cycling and oral nutrition supplements (ONS) from study inclusion until the day before LVAD-implantation. Patients in the control group receive standard of care treatment. The primary outcomes for the pilot study that involves 48 patients are safety (occurrence of adverse events), efficacy (group separation regarding the intake of macronutrients), feasibility of the trial protocol (compliance (percentage of received interventions) and confirmation of recruitment rates. Secondary outcomes include longitudinal measurements of muscle mass, muscle strength, physical function and quality of life, next to traditional clinical outcomes (30-day mortality, hospital and ICU length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation and number of complications and infections). If the pilot study is successful, a larger confirmatory, international multicenter study is warranted.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".