Critical review of bariatric surgery, medically supervised diets, and behavioural interventions for weight management in adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Patient selection of weight management treatment option is often guided by a variety of factors. Currently, there is no comprehensive tool to facilitate informed decision-making for patients and clinicians. This article aims to synthesise evidence on the treatment effectiveness, health benefits, risks, and patient experiences of treatment options presently available at the Weight Management Clinic at The Ottawa Hospital (TOH), as a first step towards developing a decision aid. METHODS: Narrative and systematic reviews published in English between 1999 and 2014 were included that focused on one or more of the following weight management treatments in adults aged 18 years and over: roux-en-y gastric bypass (RYGB), sleeve gastrectomy (SG), medically supervised meal replacement, and behavioural or lifestyle intervention. RESULTS: Overall, bariatric surgeries have received the greatest research attention and have been associated not only with greater weight loss and health benefit but also with greater risks, complications, and financial cost. Dietary programmes demonstrated weight loss and health benefits to a lesser extent than with surgery but were associated with lower and shorter-term risks and complications. Behavioural and lifestyle interventions have been studied less yet have shown significant, albeit small, weight loss outcomes alone and in combination with dietary or surgical options; they also appear to be the lowest risk interventions. Patient experiences of weight management options are mixed and not well understood. CONCLUSION: Further research is needed; however, this review identified some general trends related to weight loss outcomes, benefits, risks, and barriers for weight management options that have implications for shared treatment decision-making.
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 | 0.013 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".