MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

LAP-Banding Obesity

2005· article· en· W2039017693 on OpenAlexaff
Cheryl Loewe, Francisco J. Díaz, Andrea Jackson

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Forensic Medicine & Pathology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal and GI Pathology
Canadian institutionsOffice of the Chief Medical Examiner
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAdjustable gastric bandSurgeryPerforationWeight lossMorbid obesityGeneral surgeryObesityInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a case of peritonitis and death due to the misplacement of a laparoscopic adjustable band inserted through, instead of around, the stomach. This represents the first case in the published literature where a LAP-BAND perforated the stomach, followed by peritonitis and death. The morbidly obese female patient with a history of hypertension and arthritis was 47 years old, 5 feet 6 inches tall, weighed 361 pounds, and had a body mass index of 58.3. She underwent a 2-hour, elective, LAP-band insertion operation to achieve weight loss; 27 hours after band insertion, following the conduction of all FDA-mandated Lap-Band postoperative protocol (including a radiologic Gastrogrografin swallow), the patient was discharged with "no evidence of esophageal stasis or obstruction." She remained out of hospital care and in her residence until she called for and was taken by an ambulance to an alternate, local hospital (57 hours after band insertion), when gastric perforation was confirmed via x-ray and CT scans. No open surgery was attempted to repair the damage, and cardiac arrest ensued 7 hours after admission to the second hospital. The patient was pronounced dead 64 hours after LAP-band insertion. This unique case is significant, given that there were no deaths of this kind reported in The LAP-BAND(R) Adjustable Gastric Banding System Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Data by the United States Center for Devices and Radiologic Health, of the Food and Drug Administration, or in searches of the published literature.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.759
Threshold uncertainty score0.614

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations9
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Forensic Medicine & PathologySame topicEsophageal and GI PathologyFrench-language works237,207