MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4303628044 · doi:10.3390/diseases10040080

Tricking the Brain with Leptin to Limit Post Liposuction and Post Bariatric Surgery Weight Regain?

2022· article· en· W4303628044 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDiseases · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDietary Effects on Health
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiposuctionLeptinMedicineSurgeryObesityInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Obesity represents a medical challenge for modern therapists. The main difficulty is that once obesity is established, it is hard to reverse. It is believed that once an increased body weight/adiposity content is reached it becomes the "reference" that energy mechanisms adjust towards keeping. Thus, following a weight loss, such as following liposuction/bariatric surgery, the metabolic balance would target this "reference" that represents the previously reached body weight/adiposity content. On the other hand, medical procedures of liposuction and bariatric surgery reduce the level of the adipocytes-produced hormone leptin. This leptin level reduction leads to an increase in food intake and a decrease in energy expenditure. Therefore, the reduced leptin would be among the signals received by the brain to trigger weight regain via processes aiming to re-establish the pre-liposuction/pre-bariatric surgery body weight or adiposity content. We suggest administering leptin so that the brain does not detect the post- liposuction/post-bariatric surgery weight loss; thus, limiting the signals toward weight regain, leading to a better weight control.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.251
Threshold uncertainty score0.415

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.234 · 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