Association Between Bariatric Surgery and Major Adverse Diabetes Outcomes in Patients With Diabetes and Obesity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: There are high-quality randomized clinical trial data demonstrating the effect of bariatric surgery on type 2 diabetes remission, but these studies are not powered to study mortality in this patient group. Large observational studies are warranted to study the association of bariatric surgery with mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes. Objective: To determine the association between bariatric surgery and all-cause mortality among patients with type 2 diabetes and severe obesity. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective, population-based matched cohort study included patients with type 2 diabetes and body mass index (BMI; calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) 35 or greater who underwent bariatric surgery from January 2010 to December 2016 in Ontario, Canada. Multiple linked administrative databases were used to define confounders, including age, baseline BMI, sex, comorbidities, duration of diabetes diagnosis, health care utilization, socioeconomic status, smoking status, substance abuse, cancer screening, and psychiatric history. Potential controls were identified from a primary care electronic medical record database. Data were analyzed in 2020. Exposure: Bariatric surgery (gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy) and nonsurgical management of obesity provided by the primary care physician. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were cause-specific mortality and nonfatal morbidities. Groups were compared through a multivariable Cox proportional Hazards model. Results: A total of 6910 patients (mean [SD] age at baseline, 52.04 [9.45] years; 4950 [71.6%] women) were included, with 3455 patients who underwent bariatric surgery and 3455 match controls and a median (interquartile range) follow-up time of 4.6 (3.22-6.35) years. In the surgery group, 83 patients (2.4%) died, compared with 178 individuals (5.2%) in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.53 [95% CI, 0.41-0.69]; P < .001). Bariatric surgery was associated with a 68% lower cardiovascular mortality (HR, 0.32 [95% CI, 0.15-0.66]; P = .002) and a 34% lower rate of composite cardiac events (HR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.55-0.85]; P < .001). Risk of nonfatal renal events was also 42% lower in the surgical group compared with the control group (HR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.35-0.95], P = .03). Of the groups that had the highest absolute benefit associated with bariatric surgery, men had an absolute risk reduction (ARR) of 3.7% (95% CI, 1.7%-5.7%), individuals with more than 15 years of diabetes had an ARR of 4.3% (95% CI, 0.8%-7.8%), and individuals aged 55 years or older had an ARR of 4.7% (95% CI, 3.0%-6.4%). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that bariatric surgery was associated with reduced all-cause mortality and diabetes-specific cardiac and renal outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and severe obesity.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".