MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979415011 · doi:10.1080/07315724.2013.797854

A Brief History of the Surgery for Obesity to the Present, with an Overview of Nutritional Implications

2013· review· en· W1979415011 on OpenAlexaff
Mervyn Deitel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American College of Nutrition · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBariatric Surgery and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsCanadian Obesity Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObesityMedicinePublic healthWeight Loss SurgeryIntensive care medicineDiabetes mellitusWeight lossObesity SurgeryGeneral surgerySurgeryGerontologyEnvironmental healthInternal medicineEndocrinologyGastric bypassPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Massive obesity results in serious diseases, which are a major public health problem. Surgery is frequently the only means to achieve and sustain significant weight loss. This historical overview is aimed at providing knowledge and appreciation of this surgery to scientists in other complex areas of nutrition. The development of these operations is provided, including their potential nutritional sequelae. Because type 2 diabetes frequently improves or resolves postoperatively, related operations are being investigated in patients with lower weights.Key teaching points: Severe obesity is often resistant to conservative therapy.Operations providing weight loss via gastric restriction with early satiety or intestinal bypass with malabsorption have evolved over the past 50 years.These operations are now being performed laparoscopically rather than by an open approach.Among the obesity-related diseases that resolve with weight loss, type 2 diabetes (T2D) is of great importance, and bypass operations are being modified for T2D in patients with less obesity.Postoperative surveillance and multivitamin supplementation are necessary, especially for vitamin D, calcium, iron, B12, and folate.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.005

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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American College of NutritionSame topicBariatric Surgery and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207