Laparoscopic surgery was better than an intensive non-surgical intervention for weight loss in mild to moderate obesity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
O’Brien PE, Dixon JB, Laurie C, et al . Treatment of mild to moderate obesity with laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding or an intensive medical program: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2006;144:625–33. [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q In patients with mild to moderate obesity, is laparoscopic gastric band (LGB) surgery more effective than a non-surgical diet and lifestyle intervention for promoting weight loss? Clinical impact ratings GP/FP/Primary care ★★★★★★☆ IM/Ambulatory care ★★★★★★☆ Endocrine ★★★★★★☆ Surgery—gastrointestinal ★★★★★★☆ ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Design: randomised controlled trial. ### ![Graphic][6]</img>Allocation: concealed.* ### ![Graphic][7]</img>Blinding: unblinded.* ### ![Graphic][8]</img>Follow up period: 2 years. ### ![Graphic][9]</img>Setting: a community clinic, clinics in a university department of surgery, and a private community hospital in Australia. ### ![Graphic][10]</img>Patients: 80 patients 20–50 years of age (mean age 41 y, 76% women) who had a body mass index (BMI) 30–35 kg/m2; had obesity related comorbidities (⩾1 of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, hypertension, dyslipidaemia, diabetes, or obstructive sleep apnoea), psychosocial conditions, or severe physical limitations; and had attempted to lose weight in the past 5 years. Exclusion criteria were contraindications to treatment or bariatric surgery or participation in a physician supervised programme of … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DAnnals%2Bof%2BInternal%2BMedicine%26rft.stitle%253DANN%2BINTERN%2BMED%26rft.issn%253D0003-4819%26rft.aulast%253DO%2527Brien%26rft.auinit1%253DP.%2BE.%26rft.volume%253D144%26rft.issue%253D9%26rft.spage%253D625%26rft.epage%253D633%26rft.atitle%253DTreatment%2Bof%2BMild%2Bto%2BModerate%2BObesity%2Bwith%2BLaparoscopic%2BAdjustable%2BGastric%2BBanding%2Bor%2Ban%2BIntensive%2BMedical%2BProgram%253A%2BA%2BRandomized%2BTrial%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.7326%252F0003-4819-144-9-200605020-00005%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F16670131%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.7326/0003-4819-144-9-200605020-00005&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=16670131&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F11%2F5%2F146.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000237293700001&link_type=ISI [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [9]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [10]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Non-randomized trial | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | high |
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".