Exercise and bariatric surgery: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of the feasibility and acceptability of exercise and controlled trial methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the feasibility and acceptability of exercise and controlled trial methods in adults awaiting or having undergone bariatric surgery (BS). Search methods used to identify relevant articles were inclusion of articles identified in a systematic review, new database search of articles published 2019-2021, and hand searching reference lists. Titles/abstracts and full-texts were screened by two reviewers independently against inclusion criteria: adults awaiting or having undergone BS, controlled trial, exercise group compared with a comparison group without exercise. Twenty-eight articles were reviewed; most interventions were supervised, performed after BS, and lasted ≤13 weeks. Pooled data for exercise intervention attendance and dropout rates were 84% (k = 10) and 5% (k = 19), respectively, though possibly misestimated due to poor/selective reporting. Median study and recruitment duration were 18 weeks and 24 months, respectively, with a pooled enrollment rate of 2.5 participants/month. Pooled data for refusal to participate, enrollment, and retention rates were 23% (k = 16), 43% (k = 18), and 87% (k = 26), respectively. Despite the lack of data available in studies included, exercise and controlled trial methods seem feasible and acceptable for adults awaiting or having undergone BS. To better identify methodological or practical challenges, and assess bias, better reporting of feasibility and acceptability indicators is needed in future studies.
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 | 0.126 | 0.260 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.042 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".