Endoscopic Treatment of Obesity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The increasing incidence of obesity and overweight among children and adolescents will be reflected by the imminent increase in the number of obese patients who require more definitive methods of treatment. There is great interest in new, safe, simple, nonsurgical procedures for weight loss. OBJECTIVE: To provide an overview of new endoscopic methods for the treatment of obesity. METHODS: An English-language literature search on endoscopic interventions, endoscopically placed devices and patient safety was performed in the MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases. RESULTS: The literature search yielded the following weight loss methods: space-occupying devices (widely used), gastric capacity reduction, modifying gastric motor function and malabsorptive procedures. A commercially available intragastric balloon was the most commonly used device for weight loss. In specific subgroups of patients, it improved quality of life, decreased comorbidities and served as a bridge to surgery. More evidence regarding the potential benefits and safety of other commercially available intragastric balloons is needed to clarify whether they are superior to the most commonly used one. Moreover, early experiences with transoral gastroplasty, the duodenal-jejunal bypass sleeve and an adjustable, totally implantable intragastric prosthesis, indicate that they may be viable options for obesity treatment. Other agents, such as botulinum toxin and a device known as the 'butterfly', are currently at the experimental stage. CONCLUSION: New endoscopic methods for weight loss may be valuable in the treatment of obesity; however, more clinical experience and technical improvements are necessary before implementing their widespread use.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".