Quality of life following perioperative optimization with nutritional supplements in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery for cancer: A randomized, placebo‐controlled feasibility clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Up to two thirds of patients presenting for abdominal cancer surgery are malnourished pre-operatively. Perioperative nutritional supplementation has been proposed to improve surgical outcomes, though its effect on quality of life (QoL) is not yet understood. METHODS: A randomized controlled feasibility trial for perioperative nutrition among patients undergoing major abdominal cancer surgery was conducted. Participants in the intervention group received supplements for 30 days before surgery. Participants completed two QoL questionnaires (EORTC-QLQ-C-30 and FACT-G) at baseline, then 4 and 12 weeks postoperatively. Participants were compared between and within groups at baseline, Weeks 4, and 12 using t tests. Minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) were considered as a 10-point worsening from baseline. RESULTS: Sixty-six participants were available for analysis in this study, including 33 in the intervention and 30 in the control arms. Baseline demographics were balanced between groups except for different rates of pancreas cancer (36% intervention vs. 9% control) and colorectal cancer (19% intervention vs. 34% control). At baseline, participants in the intervention group had lower overall QoL (59% vs. 77%, p = 0.01), role functioning (72% vs 88%, p = 0.045), and cognitive functioning (79% vs 90%, p = 0.047). Following surgery, role and physical functioning worsened in the control group, without significant differences between groups. Role functioning was persistently worsened at 12 weeks in the control group. The rates of MCIDs were similar between both intervention and control groups. DISCUSSION: Perioperative nutrition was associated with preservation of QoL in the postoperative period following major abdominal cancer surgery compared to placebo. SUMMARY: Among patients undergoing surgery for cancer, the majority present at high risk for malnutrition. In this placebo-controlled randomized trial among patients undergoing major abdominal surgery for cancer, preoperative nutrition supplementation was associated with the preservation of QoL in the postoperative period.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".