Bariatric surgery: a primer.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the management of bariatric surgical patients. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched, as well as PubMed US National Library, from January 1950 to December 2009. Evidence was levels I, II, and III. MAIN MESSAGE: Bariatric surgery should be considered for obese patients at high risk of morbidity and mortality who have not achieved adequate weight loss with lifestyle and medical management and who are suffering from the complications of obesity. Bariatric surgery can result in substantial weight loss, resolution of comorbid conditions, and improved quality of life. The patient's weight-loss history; his or her personal accountability, responsibility, and comprehension; and the acceptable level of risk must be taken into account. Complications include technical failure, bleeding, abdominal pain, nausea or vomiting, excess loose skin, bowel obstruction, ulcers, and anastomotic stricture. Lifelong monitoring by a multidisciplinary team is essential. CONCLUSION: Limited long-term success of behavioural and pharmacologic therapies in severe obesity has led to renewed interest in bariatric surgery. Success with bariatric surgery is more likely when multidisciplinary care providers, in conjunction with primary care providers, assess, treat, monitor, and evaluate patients before and after surgery. Family physicians will play a critical role in counseling patients about bariatric surgery and will need to develop skills in managing these patients in the long-term.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".