Different Quality of Life Outcomes Between Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass and Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Banding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study was conducted to analyze if bariatric surgery interventions can induce changes in quality of life (QoL) perception of obese people and to compare the outcomes of two different kinds of bariatric surgery interventions. Methods: A before–after study on a cohort of obese patients who were subjected to bariatric surgery in the years 2013–2015 was conducted. QoL using the Laval Questionnaire, a tool specifically created for the evaluation of QoL on obese people waiting for surgery, was assessed. Results: One hundred sixty subjects were enrolled in the final sample (62 for gastric bypass vs. 98 for adjustable gastric banding [GB]). Incremental improvements in QoL have occurred in the third month after surgery, with a contextual progressive weight loss. Subjects who underwent gastric bypass experienced greater improvements in QoL and a more important weight loss than patients who were subjected to adjustable GB. Conclusions: After 12 months, general QoL shows an improvement and an important weight loss occurs in many patients; hopefully, these results will be sustained in a longer period. Bariatric surgery could be an important solution for the improvement of QoL in obese people.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".