MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4284886241 · doi:10.3389/fphys.2022.869998

Preoperative Physical Activity Level and Exercise Prescription in Adults With Obesity: The Effect on Post-Bariatric Surgery Outcomes

2022· review· en· W4284886241 on OpenAlexaff
Georges Jabbour, Rony Ibrahim, Nicola Luigi Bragazzi

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Physiology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBariatric Surgery and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePhysical activityMedical prescriptionExercise prescriptionObesityPhysical therapyAnthropometryInternal medicinePharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This systematic review summarizes current evidence on the relation between preoperative physical activity (PA) levels with bariatric surgery (BS) outcomes and on the beneficial role of preoperative exercise/PA program among BS candidates. This systematic review suggests that candidate patients accumulating the preoperative PA level improved several BS outcomes. These improvements were reported mainly for anthropometric and cardiometabolic parameters and physical function. Observed improvements manifested during a distinct period of time in response to a wide variety of exercise programs. Evidence on the preoperative PA level as well as on preoperative exercise implementation on BS outcomes is advocated despite the small number of participants and lack of control. Thus, further studies are required to explore the most effective and suitable form of exercise prescription prior to BS while considering physical and psychological limitations of obese patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PhysiologySame topicBariatric Surgery and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207