Gastrointestinal reported outcomes following one anastomosis gastric bypass based on a multicenter study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives To describe gastrointestinal-related side-effects reported following the One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass (OAGB).Methods A multicenter study among OAGB patients across Israel (n = 277) and Portugal (n = 111) who were recruited to the study based on time elapsed since surgery was performed. An online survey with information on demographics, anthropometrics, medical conditions, and gastrointestinal outcomes was administered in both countries simultaneously.Results Respondents from Israel (pre-surgery age of 41.6 ± 11.0 years, 75.8% females) and Portugal (pre-surgery age of 45.6 ± 12.3 years, 79.3% females) presented mean excess weight loss of 51.0 ± 19.9 and 62.4 ± 26.5%, 89.0 ± 22.0 and 86.2 ± 21.4%, and 89.9 ± 23.6 and 98.2 ± 20.9% (P < 0.001 for both countries), at 1–6 months, 6–12 months, and 1–5 years post-surgery, respectively. Median Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale score was similar between time elapsed since surgery groups among respondents from Israel and Portugal (≤1.97 and ≤2.12). A notable proportion of respondents from Israel and Portugal at all time points reported 1–3 bowel movements per day (≤62.8 and ≤87.6%), Bristol stool scale categories which represent diarrhea-like stools (≤51.9 and ≤56.3%), having discomfort due to flatulence (≤79.4 and ≤90.2%), and mild to severe dyspepsia symptoms (≤50.5 and ≤73.0%).Conclusions A notable proportion of OAGB patients might experience certain gastrointestinal symptoms postoperatively, including flatulence, dyspepsia, and diarrhea-like stools.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".