A Comparison of the Health Benefits of Customized Multivitamins and Standard Supplementation Post-bariatric Surgery: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rates of obesity increase worldwide year after year. This review explored if customized multivitamins (CMV) resulted in less micronutrient deficiency and higher serum levels of vitamins and minerals when compared to standard multivitamins (SMV) post-bariatric surgery in adults. Vitamins investigated were vitamins B1, B6, B12, D, parathyroid hormone (PTH), calcium, iron, hemoglobin, ferritin, folic acid, zinc, and magnesium. In Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) patients weight loss surgeries (WLS) Forte or chewable CMV were studied, while in sleeve gastrectomy (SG) patients, WLS Optimum 1.0 (Opt. 1.0) or WLS Optimum 2.0 (Opt. 2.0) multivitamins were studied. An electronic search was performed on three databases (PubMed (n=28), Embase (n=120), and Cochrane (n=106)) to identify clinical trials and cohort studies. The inclusion criteria focused on studies since 2011 for adults ≥18 years old post-GB and SG. The keywords included bypass, sleeve, WLS, and multivitamins. Four clinical trials and three cohort studies were included. Jadad Scale was used to assess the quality and the bias risk in the clinical trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) was used for the cohort studies. The PICO model and PRISMA rules were followed, where the outcomes targeted certain vitamin serum levels and the levels of deficiencies. The results of WLS Forte were better than SMV. The chewable CMV and Opt. 1.0 results were comparable to SMV. Opt. 2.0 was slightly better than Opt. 1.0. Further modifications would enhance the CMV presented in this systemic review. SMV would still be recommended until CMV are modified and tested. Multi-center trials that monitor the effect of the modified CMV on the serum levels of vitamins and minerals in the longer term in different wider populations are needed.
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 | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".