The Impact of Gastric Bypass on Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease in Patients With Morbid Obesity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of gastric bypass (GBP) on gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) based on Montreal Consensus. METHODS: In this study, 86 patients (25 men; aging 38 +/- 12 years; body mass index 45 [35-68 kg/m2]) were investigated for GERD before GBP and 6 months later. Esophageal and extraesophageal syndromes were assessed based on Montreal Consensus. Esophageal acid exposure and gastric pouch acidity were also evaluated. RESULTS: Overall prevalence of GERD was 64% before GBP and 33% after GBP (P < 0.0001). Typical reflux syndrome (TRS) was present in 47 patients (55%) preoperatively and disappeared in 39 of them (79%) post-GBP. Out of 39 patients with no symptoms, 4 (10%) developed TRS postoperatively (P < 0.0001). The chief TRS complaint changed from heartburn pre-GBP (96%) to regurgitation post-GBP (64%). Esophageal mucosa improved in 27, was unchanged in 51, and worsened in 8 patients (P = 0.001) in regard of esophagitis. Extraesophageal syndromes were present in 16 patients preoperatively and in none but one post-GBP (P = 0.0003). GERD-related well being and use of proton pump inhibitors were both improved after GBP. Total acid exposure decreased from a median (interquartile range, 25%-75%) of 5.1% (range, 2-8.2) to 1.1% (range, 0.2-4.8), P = 0.0002. Most patients (86%) showed and acid gastric pouch in fasting conditions post-GBP. CONCLUSIONS: GBP ameliorated GERD syndromes in most patients 6 months after the procedure, resulting in quality of life improvement and less proton pump inhibitors usage. Whether regurgitation post-GBP corresponds to reflux disease or bad eating behavior deserves further studies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; 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".