A Retrospective Study about the Differences in Cardiometabolic Risk Indicators and Level of Physical Activity in Bariatric Surgery Patients from Private vs. Public Units
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Obesity is a pathology with a growing incidence in developing countries. Objective: To evaluate the evolution of cardiometabolic, anthropometrics, and physical activity parameters in individuals undergoing bariatric surgery (BS) in the public healthcare system (PUS) and private healthcare system (PHS). Methods: A longitudinal, observational, and retrospective study was conducted with 111 bariatric patients on two different health systems, with 60 patients from the PUS and 51 from the PHS. Cardiometabolic risk (CR) was analyzed by the assessment of obesity-related comorbidities (AORC) on admission and 3, 6, and 12 months after BS, and the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) was surveyed before and 12 months after BS. In addition, cardiometabolic risk was also assessed by biochemical (fasting glucose and complete lipidogram) and anthropometric (weight, weight loss, waist circumference, and waist-to-height ratio) parameters. Results: On admission, the parameters of severe obesity, systemic arterial hypertension (SAH), Diabetes mellitus (DM), and waiting time to BS were higher in the PUS. Additionally, in the PUS, AORC was reduced only in the SAH parameter. However, in the post-surgery moment, AORC reduced, and there was no difference between the two groups after BS. Regarding physical activity, the IPAQ showed a higher level of activity in the PHS before and one year after BS. Conclusion: At the PUS, BS is performed in patients with a higher degree of comorbidities, but BS improved the reduction of the CR at a similar level to those observed in the PHS.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".