Five-year outcomes after surgery for class 1 obesity: a retrospective analysis of a Canadian bariatric centre’s experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of literature exploring the role of bariatric surgery in class 1 obesity. We evaluated the 5-year outcomes after bariatric surgery in patients with class 1 obesity, assessing weight loss, resolution/reduction of obesity-related comorbidities, morbidity and mortality. METHODS: We performed a single-centre retrospective analysis of patients who underwent bariatric surgery (laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy [LSG] or laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass [LRYGB)]) for class 1 obesity (body mass index [BMI] 30.0-34.9) between January 2012 and February 2019. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients (35 [95%] female, mean age 44.5 yr [standard error (SE) 11.3 yr], mean preoperative BMI 33.1) were included, of whom 32 underwent LSG and 5 underwent LRYGB. Thirty-five patients were followed for 5 years post-operatively, achieving a mean BMI of 25.6 (SE 1.2) and excess weight loss of 89.4% (SE 15.1%). Remission of hypertension was achieved in 5 of 12 patients (42%), and remission of dyslipidemia was achieved in 7 of 11 patients (64%). Of the 11 patients with diabetes, 7 underwent LSG and 4, LRYGB. At 5 years postoperatively, the mean glycosylated hemoglobin concentration was 6.3%. Four patients in the LSG group developed de novo reflux, 1 patient required conversion to LRYGB, and 1 patient with sleeve stenosis required endoscopic dilatation. There were no deaths in either patient group. CONCLUSION: At our centre, bariatric surgery for class 1 obesity was safe and had long-term efficacy, with remission or reduction of related comorbidities. Prospective controlled trials are required to confirm these results.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".