Weight loss between glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonists and bariatric surgery in adults with obesity: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective Glucagon‐like peptide‐1 (GLP‐1) receptor agonists recently demonstrated 15% to 20% weight loss in adults with obesity, a range which has previously been achieved only with bariatric surgery. This systematic review and meta‐analysis compares weight loss between GLP‐1 receptor agonists and bariatric surgery. Methods The databases MEDLINE, MEDLINE In‐Process, MEDLINE Epubs Ahead of Print, Embase Classic + Embase (OvidSP), and Cochrane (Wiley) were searched from inception to April 21, 2021, for randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Two independent reviewers extracted data, reported risk of bias, and graded certainty of evidence. Random‐effects models were used to pool change in weight, BMI, and glycated hemoglobin. Results Six studies, encompassing 332 patients, were included. Among randomized controlled trials, mean difference in weight between all bariatric surgery types and GLP‐1 receptor agonists was −22.68 kg (95% CI: −31.41 to −13.96), mean difference in BMI was −8.18 kg/m 2 (95% CI: −11.59 to −4.77), and mean difference in glycated hemoglobin was −1.28% (95% CI: −1.94% to −0.61%). Among observational studies, mean difference in weight was −25.11 kg (95% CI: −40.61 to −9.60), and mean difference in BMI was −10.60 kg/m 2 (95% CI: −17.22 to −3.98). Only one observational study reported glycemic outcomes. Conclusion In adults with obesity, bariatric surgery still confers the highest reductions in weight and BMI but confers similar effects in glycemic control when compared with GLP‐1 receptor agonists.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it