Bibliographic record
Abstract
Today, bariatric surgery is the most effective treatment of obesity. Restrictive surgeries are aimed at reducing the volume of the stomach. Such operations have the least adverse effects in terms of the physiology of digestion. However, they are less effective in losing weight. Mixed operations (gastric bypass surgery, biliopancreatic diversion) decrease the volume of the stomach and the length of the small intestine. Mixed operations tend to provide more pronounced results in a short time. However, by seriously disrupting the digestion and absorption of the food, they may result in severe micronutrient deficiencies. The assimilation of lipophilic substances is severely impaired as the biliopancreatic system is almost disconnected from the digestive tract. Furthermore, the assimilations of not only fats and essential fatty acids but also all fat-soluble vitamins are interrupted. In most cases, these patients need to take high-dose micronutrient supplements for their whole life. Usually, deficiencies of vitamins A, D, E, C, and vitamins of group B, especially B1, B6, B12, niacin, and folate, as well as iron, calcium, phosphate, magnesium, zinc, copper, and selenium, are found after operations. Restrictive operations, although less traumatic for the digestive system, significantly disrupt the digestion and absorption of nutrients, especially those in which the stomach plays a significant role in its digestion. These are proteins, folate, niacin, vitamin B12, iron, and copper. Bariatric surgical procedures are like a double-edged sword. They can be highly effective in the treatment of obesity and related complications; nevertheless, they are surgeries with serious potential for complications.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.067 | 0.040 |
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".