Micronutrient screening, monitoring, and supplementation in pregnancy after bariatric surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present the case of a woman with a history of biliopancreatic diversion and duodenal switch procedure who developed severe malnourishment requiring total parenteral nutrition during three pregnancies. The widespread use of bariatric surgery, particularly among those of reproductive age, has led to an increase in the number of women who become pregnant following bariatric surgery. There is a paucity of evidence to guide nutritional recommendations for women during pregnancy post bariatric surgery. We review this literature and summarize key published evidence and provide comprehensive recommendations concerning the common challenges in the management of nutrition status during pregnancy. The focus is on the impact of malabsorptive bariatric surgeries on pregnancy outcomes, nutrient deficiencies, recommendations for micro- and macronutrient monitoring and supplementation, and altered glucose metabolism and implications for diabetes screening. Optimizing pregnancy outcomes for individuals following bariatric surgery requires multidisciplinary team management including obstetrical providers, obstetric medicine specialists, and dietitians.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".