Bariatric Surgery for Morbid Obesity: Tehran Obesity Treatment Study (TOTS) Rationale and Study Design
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Obesity is a major health concern in the Middle East and worldwide. It is among the leading causes of morbidity, mortality, health care utilization, and costs. With bariatric surgery proving to be a more effective treatment option for overweight and obesity, the need for systematic assessment of different procedures and their outcomes becomes necessary. These procedures have not yet been described in detail in our region. OBJECTIVE: We aim to undertake a prospective study evaluating and comparing several surgical bariatric procedures in an Iranian population of morbid obese patients presenting to a specialized bariatric center. METHODS: In order to facilitate and accelerate understanding of obesity and its complications, the Tehran Obesity Treatment Study (TOTS) was planned and developed. This study is a longitudinal prospective cohort study in consecutive patients undergoing bariatric surgery. TOTS investigators use standardized definitions, high-fidelity data collection system, and validated instruments to gather data preoperatively, at the time of surgery, postoperatively, and in longer-term follow-up. RESULTS: This study has recruited 1050 participants as of September 2015 and is ongoing. CONCLUSIONS: This study will ensure creation of high-level evidence to enable clinicians to make meaningful evidence-based decisions for patient evaluation, selection for surgery, and follow-up care.
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 it