MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391734708 · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-54141-6

Current recommendations for procedure selection in class I and II obesity developed by an expert modified Delphi consensus

2024· article· en· W4391734708 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Kermansaravi, Sonja Chiappetta, Chetan Parmar, Scott A. Shikora, Gerhard Prager, Teresa LaMasters, Jaime Ponce, Lilian Kow, Abdelrahman Nimeri, Shanu N. Kothari, Edo O. Aarts, Syed Imran Abbas, Ahmad Aly, Ali Aminian, Ahmad Bashir, Estuardo Behrens, Helmuth Billy, Miguel Ángel Martín Carbajo, Benjamin Clapp, Jean‐Marc Chevallier, Ricardo V. Cohen, J. Dargent, Bruno Dillemans, Sílvia Leite Faria, Manoel Galvão Neto, Pierre Y. Garneau, Khaled Gawdat, Ashraf Haddad, Mohamad Hayssam ElFawal, Kelvin Higa, Jaques Himpens, Farah Husain, Matthew M. Hutter, Kazunori Kasama, Radwan Kassir, Amir Khan, Mousa Khoursheed, Matthew Kroh, Marina Kurian, Wei‐Jei Lee, Ken Loi, Kamal Mahawar, Corrigan L. McBride, Hazem Al-Momani, John Melissas, Karl Miller, Monali Misra, Mario Musella, C. Joe Northup, Mary O’Kane, Pavlos Papasavas, Mariano Palermo, Richard M. Peterson, Ralph Peterli, Luis Poggi, Janey S.A. Pratt, Aayad Alqahtani, Almino Ramos, Karl Peter Rheinwalt, Rui Ribeiro, Ann M. Rogers, Bassem Safadi, Paulina Salminen, Sérgio Santoro, Nathaniel Sann, John D. Scott, Asim Shabbir, Stephanie Sogg, Erik Stenberg, Michel Suter, Antonio Torres, Surendra Ugale, Ramón Vilallonga, Cunchuan Wang, Rudolf A. Weiner, Natán Zundel, Luigi Angrisani, Maurizio De Luca

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBariatric Surgery and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObesityDelphi methodBody mass indexSleeve gastrectomySevere obesityExpert opinionDelphiWeight lossSurgeryGeneral surgeryFamily medicineGastric bypassIntensive care medicineInternal medicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is widely considered the most effective option for treating obesity, a chronic, relapsing, and progressive disease. Recently, the American Society of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) and the International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders (IFSO) issued new guidelines on the indications for MBS, which have superseded the previous 1991 National Institutes of Health guidelines. The aim of this study is to establish the first set of consensus guidelines for selecting procedures in Class I and II obesity, using an Expert Modified Delphi Method. In this study, 78 experienced bariatric surgeons from 32 countries participated in a two-round Modified Delphi consensus voting process. The threshold for consensus was set at an agreement or disagreement of ≥ 70.0% among the experts. The experts reached a consensus on 54 statements. The committee of experts reached a consensus that MBS is a cost-effective treatment option for Class II obesity and for patients with Class I obesity who have not achieved significant weight loss through non-surgical methods. MBS was also considered suitable for patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and a body mass index (BMI) of 30 kg/m2 or higher. The committee identified intra-gastric balloon (IGB) as a treatment option for patients with class I obesity and endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) as an option for patients with class I and II obesity, as well as for patients with T2DM and a BMI of ≥ 30 kg/m2. Sleeve gastrectomy (1) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) were also recognized as viable treatment options for these patient groups. The committee also agreed that one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) is a suitable option for patients with Class II obesity and T2DM, regardless of the presence or severity of obesity-related medical problems. The recommendations for selecting procedures in Class I and II obesity, developed through an Expert Modified Delphi Consensus, suggest that the use of standard primary bariatric endoscopic (IGB, ESG) and surgical procedures (SG, RYGB, OAGB) are acceptable in these patient groups, as consensus was reached regarding these procedures. However, randomized controlled trials are still needed in Class I and II Obesity to identify the best treatment approach for these patients in the future.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.308
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.264
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.308
Threshold uncertainty score0.854

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3080.264
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0110.005
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0050.009
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicBariatric Surgery and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207