A Retrospective Chart Review of Patients Who Underwent Cardiac Evaluation Before Bariatric Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Overweight and obesity are considered to be a global pandemic. Its associations with hypertension, diabetes and hyperlipidemia are important risk factors for cardiovascular diseases. METHODS: This was a retrospective, observational chart review of obese patients who were seen in our outpatient clinic for cardiovascular clearance prior to an intended bariatric surgery between 2004 and 2020. Data from patient's demographics, risk factors, presence of coronary artery disease (CAD) and other cardiovascular diseases were collected from medical charts. They underwent clinical evaluation, non-invasive workup including electrocardiograms, echocardiograms, treadmill exercise tests and some of them myocardial perfusion studies and coronary angiograms when indicated, based on their symptoms and/or risk factors for CAD. RESULTS: From 761 patients studied, 7.6% (58 patients) underwent coronary angiograms, based on their non-invasive workup and their history. Among them, we found that 17 patients had significant CAD. It should be mentioned that this is a selected group of patients with the intention to undergo a bariatric surgical procedure, which this makes them somewhat different from the general population, and this could be considered among the limitations of our study. CONCLUSIONS: Data from our selected population chart review showed that in this specific population, there was no high prevalence of cardiovascular disease, specifically coronary atherosclerosis, dilated cardiomyopathy, left ventricular hypertrophy, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, stroke, venous thrombosis and obstructive sleep apnea.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".