MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W136012872

Neurologic complications of bariatric surgery.

2010· article· en· W136012872 on OpenAlexaff
Fang Ba, Zaeem A. Siddiqi

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBariatric Surgery and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryVomitingComplicationEncephalopathyWernicke's encephalopathyMyelopathyPopulationParkinsonismObesityPediatricsDiseaseThiamineInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the rapid rise in the number of bariatric surgeries performed for morbid obesity, several short- and long-term neurologic complications of this procedure have been identified. These complications affect various levels of the neuraxis, and most are likely secondary to deficiency of essential minerals and vitamins. We report on 3 patients who developed unusual and severe neurologic deficits after undergoing bariatric surgery, including Wernicke encephalopathy, acute and rapidly progressive polyneuropathy, myelopathy, and visual deficits. Two developed clinical features of Parkinsonism, a complication not previously reported in this patient population. None of our patients had attended a nutrition clinic postoperatively. All 3 had a rapid weight loss and intractable vomiting preceding the development of neurologic symptoms, and all were found to have significant vitamin deficiencies. Replacement of vitamins resulted in a slow and variable degree of neurologic recovery. Patients undergoing bariatric surgery should have close monitoring of their nutritional status postoperatively. Routine supplementation of vitamins and minerals may be a cost-effective strategy for preventing neurologic complications in these patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.205 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicBariatric Surgery and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207