Therapeutic physical factors as part of outpatient medical rehabilitation for patients after colorectal cancer surgery: а randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The comprehensive use of therapeutic physical factors in rehabilitation programs contributes to improving the effectiveness of therapeutic measures by favorably influencing sanogenesis processes. AIM: To evaluate the effectiveness of an outpatient medical rehabilitation program for patients after colorectal cancer surgery using therapeutic physical factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An open-label, randomized, controlled prospective study included 126 patients who underwent colorectal cancer surgery. Using simple randomization, the patients were divided into three groups. In Comparison group 1 (n=40), rehabilitation followed the Russian guidelines (individual therapeutic exercise and pinaverium bromide). In Comparison group 2 (n=43), in addition to the rehabilitation measures of Group 1, patients received low-mineralized mineral water “Psyz.” In the Main group (n=43), patients received transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in the area of the cervical sympathetic ganglia in addition to Group 2 rehabilitation program. The effectiveness of rehabilitation measures was assessed using clinical symptom evaluation based on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) and quality of life assessment with the European Quality of Life Questionnaire (EQ-5D). RESULTS: Statistical analysis demonstrated that incorporating therapeutic physical factors into outpatient medical rehabilitation programs for patients after colorectal cancer surgery significantly reduced clinical symptoms according to the ESAS scale (p 0.01) and improved quality of life indicators according to the EQ-5D scale, particularly in the Daily Activities (p 0.01), Pain and Discomfort (p 0.01), and Anxiety and Depression (p 0.01) domains. Meanwhile, the positive changes in the studied parameters were, on average, 12–15% lower (p 0.05) in Comparison group 1 and 8–10% lower in Comparison group 2 compared with the Main group. CONCLUSION: The inclusion of therapeutic physical factors in outpatient medical rehabilitation programs for patients after colorectal cancer surgery leads to a significant improvement in quality of life.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".