MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2799615412 · doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.05.009

Outcomes of Mini vs Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: A meta-analysis and systematic review

2018· review· en· W2799615412 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Surgery · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBariatric Surgery and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialCochrane LibraryGastric bypassMeta-analysisRoux-en-Y anastomosisInternal medicineCohortCohort studySurgeryGastric bypass surgeryWeight lossObesity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Mini gastric bypass has been proved to be capable of achieving excellent metabolic results by numerous published studies. Compared to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, mini gastric bypass is a technically simpler and reversible procedure. However, comparative outcomes of the effectiveness between Mini gastric bypass and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass remain unclear. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane library from inception to February 9, 2018. For assessment of method quality, NOS (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale) and Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias were used for cohort study and randomized controlled trials, respectively. The meta-analysis was performed by RevMan 5.3 software. RESULTS: 10 cohort studies and 1 randomized controlled trial was included in our meta-analysis. The method quality of the 10 cohort studies was proved as high quality according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The randomized controlled trial was proved to have a low risk of bias according to Cochrane Collaboration's assessment. Patients receiving mini-gastric bypass had multiple advantageous indexes as compared with patients receiving Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Examples include: a higher 1-year EWL% (P < 0.05), higher 2-year EWL% (P < 0.05), higher type 2 diabetes mellitus remission rate, as well as a shorter operation time (P < 0.05). No significant statistical difference was observed in hypertension remission rate, mortality, leakage rate, GERD rate, or hospital stay between mini gastric bypass and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. CONCLUSION: Mini gastric bypass seems to be a simpler procedure with a better weight reduction effect. This seems to also be the case regarding remission rates of type 2 diabetes mellitus when using Mini gastric bypass in comparison to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. A small sample size and biased data may have influenced the stability of our results. In light of this, surgeons should treat our results in a conservative way. Larger sample size and multi-center randomized control trials are needed to compare the effectiveness and safety between mini-gastric bypass and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.304
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.013
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.141
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it