MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108556247 · doi:10.1503/cjs.002914

Cause of death in patients awaiting bariatric surgery

2015· article· en· W2108556247 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Joshua Lakoff, James Ellsmere, Tom Ransom

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Surgery · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBariatric Surgery and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCause of deathBody mass indexSurgeryObesityReferralIncidence (geometry)General surgeryPediatricsDiseaseInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Obesity is associated with increased mortality. Bariatric surgery is becoming an important treatment modality for obesity, with an associated reduction in mortality. There are few data available on the incidence and cause of death in referred patients while they are waiting for bariatric surgery. METHODS: We retrospectively examined all cases of death in patients who were referred for bariatric surgery assessment but who had not yet undergone bariatric surgery at a tertiary care centre in Halifax, Nova Scotia. The wait list comprised patients referred for surgery between March 2008 and May 2013. All cases of death were reviewed to determine age, sex, time of referral, time spent on the wait list, cause of death, comorbidities and body mass index (BMI). RESULTS: Of the 1399 patients referred, 22 (1.57%) died before receiving surgery. The mean age of these patients was 62.7 (range of 32-70) years. The average time from referral to death was 21.6 months, and the average BMI was 51.5. The most frequent cause of death was cancer, followed by cardiac and infectious causes. CONCLUSION: This study provides useful information about mortality and causes of death among patients awaiting bariatric surgery at our centre. Our results will help guide the development of a judicious system for triage in light of long wait times.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations28
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of SurgerySame topicBariatric Surgery and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207