Bariatric Surgery in Adolescents: Is Routine Nutrient Supplementation Sufficient to Avoid Anemia Following Bariatric Surgery?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Anemia following bariatric surgery is a known complication. To prevent nutrient deficiencies, adolescents require multivitamin/mineral supplementation following bariatric surgery. The purpose of this study was to investigate if routine multivitamin/mineral supplementation is sufficient to prevent anemia in adolescents undergoing bariatric surgery, particularly sleeve gastrectomy (SG), a procedure that may induce nutrient malabsorption. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of pediatric patients who underwent SG (34 patients) and laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) (141 patients) (January 2006 through December 2013). We examined anemia marker levels (iron, ferritin, folate, B12, hemoglobin, and hematocrit) at first visit and 3, 6, and 12 months postsurgery by repeated‐measures analysis adjusting for weight loss. Results: Following SG, folate levels decreased 3 and 6 months postsurgery but returned to baseline levels at 12 months. Furthermore, the SG group demonstrated lower folate levels compared with LAGB at 3 and 6 months. B12 levels decreased 6 months post‐SG but returned to baseline at 12 months. Following LAGB, B12 levels decreased 12 months postsurgery compared with baseline. Ferritin levels decreased 3 months post‐LAGB but returned to baseline levels at 6 months. There were no changes within groups or differences between groups in iron, hemoglobin, or hematocrit. Conclusions: While anemia did not occur in any patients while on recommended routine supplementation, folate levels were significantly reduced following SG and were lower in SG compared with LAGB patients. Additional folate supplementation seemed to improve folate levels, which highlights the importance of ongoing surveillance by primary care providers and the need for additional folate supplementation following SG.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 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".