MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Long-Term Maintenance of Weight Loss Following Removal of Intragastric Balloon (IGB)

2018· article· en· W2922103373 on OpenAlexaff
Sylvia Pytraczyk, Lawrence B. Cohen

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBariatric Surgery and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWeight lossBalloonBody mass indexSurgeryBody weightObesityInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Obesity and its associated morbidity and mortality, is a global epidemic with increasing prevalence. Endoscopic bariatrics, primarily consisting of intragastric balloon (IGB) placement for variable periods of time, has become an accepted form of non-surgical treatment for obese patients in search of weight loss interventions. The long-term outcome of the procedure is still evolving and maintenance of lost weight once the balloon is removed remains controversial. The aim of this study is to determine if a mean of 6.5 months of IGB treatment provides long-term weight loss maintenance after IGB removal in the absence of continuous outpatient support. Methods: Twelve of 24 obese patients with the mean age of 40 years were successfully contacted. Anthropometric measurements were recorded at baseline, removal, and telephone follow-up. Successful longterm IGB therapy is defined as maintenance of total body weight loss of over 10% from baseline. Results: At the time of balloon removal (mean of 6.5 months) the measurements were observed at body mass index (BMI) 30kg/m2, mean percent of excess weight loss (EWL) 53%, and percentage total body weight loss (TBWL) 14%. Telephone follow-up occurred after a mean of 4 years after removal of the IGB. Regain has been observed for BMI 34 kg/m2, %EWL 28%, and %TBWL4%,. Three patients (25%) maintained a mean %TBWL of 16% (mean %TBWL of 20% at removal), while five patients have kept a mean %TBWL of <4% (mean %TBWL of 13% at removal). There were no complications related to the IGB treatment. Four patients returned to baseline body weight, 2 of whom reached %TBWL 13% and 20% at the time of IGB removal. Conclusion: IGB treatment is an effective and safe non-invasive surgery, which results in variable weight loss over a temporary period of time. However, once the IGB is removed, recidivism or weight regain is a significant problem for the long- term benefit of this procedure. IGB therapy has proven to be a long-term weight loss solution in only 25% of patients as opposed to 83% of patients who saw temporary success at the time of removal. Continuous multidisciplinary outpatient support in the form of psychotherapy, regimented exercise, and supervision by a dietician are necessary not only while the IGB treatment is in place, but also after the balloon is removed would yield the best long-term benefit for these patients. IGB can however, be extremely valuable as a short-term weight loss intervention.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of GastroenterologySame topicBariatric Surgery and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207