Impact of Dietary Counseling on Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients with Cancer Awaiting Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the effectiveness of dietary counseling performed within a trimodal prehabilitation study for patients with cancer awaiting hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) surgery. Additionally, we explored relationships between nutritional status and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The dietary intervention aimed to achieve a protein intake of 1.5 g/kg/day and reduce nutrition-impact symptoms. Patients received dietary counseling 4 weeks prior to surgery (prehabilitation group); the rehabilitation group just before surgery. We used 3-day food journals to calculate protein intake and the abridged Patient-generated Subjective Global Assessment questionnaire (aPG-SGA) to determine nutritional status. We utilized the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General questionnaire to measure HRQoL. Sixty-one patients participated in the study (30 = prehabilitation). Dietary counseling achieved a significant increase in preoperative protein intake (+0.3 ± 0.1 g/kg/day, P = 0.007), with no change in the rehabilitation group. Dietary counseling did not mitigate a significant increase in aPG-SGA postoperatively (prehabilitation: +5.8 ± 1.0; rehabilitation: +3.3 ± 1.0; P < 0.05). aPG-SGA was predictive of HRQoL (β = –1.77, P < 0.0001). HRQoL remained unchanged in both groups over the study period. Dietary counseling within a HPB prehabilitation program improves preoperative protein intake, but not aPG-SGA, which is predictive of HRQoL. Future studies should examine whether specialized medical management of nutrition-impact symptoms would improve HRQoL outcomes within a prehabilitation model.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".