Methodological issues in assessing change in dietary intake and appetite following gastric bypass surgery: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gastric bypass surgery is an effective long-term treatment for individuals with severe obesity. Changes in appetite, dietary intake, and food preferences have all been postulated to contribute to postoperative body weight regulation, however, findings are inconsistent. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the current literature on changes in dietary intake and appetite following gastric bypass surgery, in the context of the methodology used and the analysis, interpretation, and presentation of results. Four databases were systematically searched with terms related to "gastric bypass surgery," "appetite," and "dietary intake," and 49 papers (n = 2384 patients after gastric bypass) were eligible for inclusion. The evidence indicated that only a reduction in overall energy intake and an increase in postprandial satiety are maintained beyond 6-month post-surgery, whereas relative macronutrient intake and premeal hunger remain unchanged. However, available data were limited by inconsistencies in the methods, analysis, presentation, and interpretation of results. In particular, there was a reliance on data collected by subjective methods with minimal acknowledgment of the limitations, such as misreporting of food intake. There is a need for further work employing objective measurement of appetite and dietary intake following gastric bypass surgery to determine how these mechanisms may contribute to weight regulation in the longer term.
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 | 0.017 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".