Evaluating the comparative efficacy of leg cycle ergometry exercise versus conventional physiotherapy on scar healing, muscle strength, functional capacity, and quality of life in coronary artery bypass graft subjects with saphenous vein graft in phase 1: a protocol for randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is a common surgical treatment for coronary artery disease. The saphenous vein's advantageous anatomical features make it a popular choice for graft vessels. However, saphenous vein harvesting often results in lower limb complications such as edema, poor scar healing, pain, and reduced functional mobility. These issues can delay recovery and diminish quality of life. Early rehabilitation using leg cycle ergometry may improve outcomes, but comparative evidence with conventional physiotherapy in Phase I post-CABG care is limited. AIM: To determine the relative benefits of leg cycle ergometry training for CABG patients with saphenous vein graft in phase 1 in terms of scar healing, muscle strength, functional ability, and quality of life. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the comparative efficacy of leg cycle ergometry exercise versus conventional physiotherapy on scar healing, muscle strength, functional capacity, and quality of life in CABG subjects with saphenous vein grafts during Phase I rehabilitation. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial will be conducted at Shalini Tai Meghe Super Speciality Centre with 70 CABG patients aged 45-65 years. Participants will be randomly allocated to Group A (conventional physiotherapy) and Group B (leg cycle ergometry with physiotherapy) for a 10-day intervention. Outcome measures include the Vancouver Scar Scale, Manual Muscle Testing, 6-Minute Walk Test, and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). Data will be analysed using the Mann-Whitney U test and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test; p<0.05 was deemed statistically significant. RESULTS: As this is a study protocol, no results are available yet. It is hypothesized that leg cycle ergometry, when added to conventional physiotherapy, will lead to greater improvements in scar healing, lower limb strength, functional capacity, and short-term quality of life during Phase I cardiac rehabilitation following CABG surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trial Registry-India (CTRI/2025/03/084291). Registered on 15 April 2025.
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 | 0.019 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.003 |
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".