Foregut bypass vs. restrictive bariatric procedures for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a meta-analysis of 3,355 individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Bariatric surgery represents an important treatment option for severely obese patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). However, there remains inadequate data regarding the effects of different bariatric procedures on various NAFLD parameters, especially for histological outcomes. Thus, this meta-analysis aimed to compare the effects of restrictive bariatric procedures and foregut bypass on the metabolic, biochemical, and histological parameters for patients with NAFLD. Methods: post-procedure with subgroup analysis to further compare restrictive against foregut bypass procedures. Results: Thirty-one articles involving 3,355 patients who underwent restrictive bariatric procedures (n=1,460) and foregut bypass (n=1,895) were included. Both foregut bypass (P<0.01) and restrictive procedures (P=0.03) significantly increased odds of fibrosis resolution. Compared to restrictive procedures, foregut bypass resulted in a borderline non-significant decrease in fibrosis score (P=0.06) and significantly lower steatosis score (P<0.001). For metabolic parameters, foregut bypass significantly lowered body mass index (P=0.003) and low-density lipoprotein (P=0.008) compared to restrictive procedures. No significant differences were observed between both procedures for aspartate aminotransferase (P=0.17) and alkaline phosphatase (P=0.61). However, foregut bypass resulted in significantly lower gamma-glutamyl transferase than restrictive procedures (P=0.01) while restrictive procedures resulted in significantly lower alanine transaminase than foregut bypass (P=0.02). Conclusions: The significant histological and metabolic advantages and comparable improvements in biochemical outcomes support the choice of foregut bypass over restrictive bariatric procedures in NAFLD management.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".