MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041658682 · doi:10.1055/s-0029-1244023

Intragastric balloons for obesity: sometimes “a water bomb waiting to explode”

2010· letter· en· W2041658682 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
L. Ulbricht, M. Kunert, B. Gremmler, Klaus Mönkemüller

Bibliographic record

VenueEndoscopy · 2010
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBariatric Surgery and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBalloonMorbid obesityWeight lossGeneral surgeryIntensive care medicineSurgeryObesityInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We read with interest the excellent review paper by Tsesmeli & Coumaros on endoscopic devices for weight reduction, and we like their objective evidence-based analysis of the current status of intragastric balloon implantation [ 1 ]. There is no question that some of these methods can benefit patients with morbid obesity [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ]. However, it seems to us that the current data do not appear to support routine clinical use of these devices. It is noteworthy that most studies have included only small numbers of patients, as is well shown in Table 1 of the paper by Tsesmeli & Coumaros [ 1 ]. We recently treated a 55-year-old man with morbid obesity who was admitted to our service because of dyspnea. The patient’s clinical history was remarkable for a cumulative weight gain of 60 kg that had begun 48 months previously after he stopped smoking, resulting in a weight of 150 kg. Due to the previous nicotine abuse, he showed signs of mild chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). At a weight of 150 kg he had undergone placement of a gastric balloon at another medical center 18 months previously. Soon thereafter he had developed abdominal pain and severe gastroesophageal reflux symptoms, including heartburn, regurgitation, retrosternal pain, and cough. As a result of these symptoms he ate less, which led to a 30 kg weight loss over a 7-month period. The patient mentioned that he felt afraid of eating for fear of developing these severe symptoms. During this time frame, the signs and symptoms of his COPD worsened dramatically. Thus, he was placed on oral corticosteroids which in turn resulted in a weight gain of 42 kg. On clinical examination he appeared in mild distress. His height and weight were 175 cm and 162 kg, respectively, resulting in a body mass index (BMI) of 52.9. An echocardiogram revealed a massively enlarged right ventricle with a maximal diameter of 8.1 cm (normal 4.2 cm) and a normal left ventricle function. The pulmonary artery pressure was 75 mmHg. Thus a cor pulmonale with right heart failure could be diagnosed. We speculate that the intragastric balloon might have resulted in worsening of the COPD. Possible mechanisms include gastroesophageal reflux, as he described typical symptoms after balloon implantation. According to the Montreal classification, both asthma and COPD can develop or worsen due to gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) [ 4 ]. However, even though the balloon might not have been associated with COPD or cor pulmonale, we want to express caution about the routine clinical use of the intragastric balloon. Most studies mention that co-morbidities improve after balloon placement [ 2 ] [ 3 ]. However, this case shows the contrary, with worsening massive “rebound” weight gain due to the corticosteroids prescribed for worsening COPD. After successful treatment of the cardiac problems, we suggested removal of the gastric balloon. However, due to his bad experience during previous endoscopy, the patient is refusing further interventions. We hope that the balloon lasts long enough for us to convince him on follow-up to have it removed, before “explosion” of this “water bomb.” Competing interests: None

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.008
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0070.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEndoscopySame topicBariatric Surgery and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207