The Anatomy of a Weight Recidivism and Revision Bariatric Surgical Clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Weight recidivism in bariatric surgery failure is multifactorial. It ranges from inappropriate patient selection for primary surgery to technical/anatomic issues related to the original surgery. Most bariatric surgeons and centers focus on primary bariatric surgery while weight recidivism and its complications are very much secondary concerns. Methods. We report on our initial experience having established a dedicated weight recidivism and revisional bariatric surgery clinic. A single surgeon, dedicated nursing, dieticians, and psychologist developed care maps, goals of care, nonsurgical candidate rules, and discharge planning strategies. Results. A single year audit (2012) of clinical activity revealed 137 patients, with a mean age 49 ± 10.1 years (6 years older on average than in our primary clinic), 75% of whom were women with BMI 47 ± 11.5. Over three quarters had undergone a vertical band gastroplasty while 15% had had a laparoscopic adjustable gastric band. Only 27% of those attending clinic required further surgery. As for primary surgery, the role of the obesity expert clinical psychologist was a key component to achieving successful revision outcomes. Conclusion. With an exponential rise in obesity and a concomitant major increase in bariatric surgery, an inevitable increase in revisional surgery is becoming a reality. Anticipating this increase in activity, Alberta Health Services, Alberta, Canada, has established a unique and dedicated clinic whose early results are promising.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.031 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".