Weight Gain After Short- and Long-Limb Gastric Bypass in Patients Followed for Longer Than 10 Years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To complete a long-term (>10 years) follow-up of patients undergoing isolated roux-en-Y gastric bypass for severe obesity. BACKGROUND: Long-term results of gastric bypass in patients followed for longer than 10 years is not reported in the literature. METHODS: Accurate weights were recorded on 228 of 272 (83.8%) of patients at a mean of 11.4 years (range, 4.7-14.9 years) after surgery. Results were documented on an individual basis for both long- and short-limb gastric bypass and compared with results at the nadir BMI and % excess weight loss (%EWL) at 5 years and >10 years post surgery. RESULTS: There was a significant (P < 0.0001) increase in BMI in both morbidly obese (BMI < 50 kg/m) and super obese patients (BMI > 50 kg/m) from the nadir to 5 years and from 5 to 10 years. The super obese lost more rapidly from time zero and gained more rapidly after reaching the lowest weight at approximately 2 years than the morbidly obese patients. There was no difference in results between the long- and short-limb operations. There was a significant increase in failures and decrease in excellent results at 10 years when compared with 5 years. The failure rate when all patients are followed for at least 10 years was 20.4% for morbidly obese patients and 34.9% for super obese patients. CONCLUSIONS: The gastric bypass limb length does not impact long-term weight loss. Significant weight gain occurs continuously in patients after reaching the nadir weight following gastric bypass. Despite this weight gain, the long-term mortality remains low at 3.1%.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".