Initial Weight Loss after Restrictive Bariatric Procedures May Predict Mid-Term Weight Maintenance: Results From a 12-Month Pilot Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Bariatric procedures are effective options for weight loss (WL) in the morbidly obese. However, some patients fail to lose any weight after bariatric surgery, and mid-term weight maintenance is variable. The aim of this study was to investigate whether initial WL could predict mid-term weight maintenance. Methods: Eighty patients were enrolled, of whom 44 were treated with the BioEnterics Intragastric Balloon (BIB), 21 with laparoscopic adjustable gastric lap-banding (LAGB), and 15 with laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). Percentage of body WL and percentage of excess weight loss (EWL) were calculated at baseline and after 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Successful WL was defined as EWL >20% for patients treated with BIB and >50% for patients treated with LAGB and SG. Results: Success in the 6th and 12th month was achieved in 80% and 58% of patients in the BIB group, 33% and 40% in the LAGB group, and 60% and 73% in the LSG group. In the BIB group, WL in the 1st month correlated positively with WL at the 6th and 12th month, and an initial WL >6.5% best predicted success (sensitivity 50%, specificity 80%). A similar association was observed in the LAGB group at the 6th and 12th month and an initial WL >9.4% best predicted success (sensitivity 90.0%, specificity 81.2%). In patients treated with LSG, WL in the 3rd month correlated positively with EWL at the 6th and 12th month, with a cutoff value of 17% (sensitivity 66.7%, specificity 100%). Conclusions: WL in the 1st month in patients treated with BIB and LAGB and WL in the 3rd month in patients treated with LSG could be used as a prognostic factor to predict mid-term weight maintenance.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".