MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403587244 · doi:10.1016/j.obpill.2024.100145

“Metabolic surgery in Asian patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and body mass index less than 30kg/m2: A systematic review”

2024· review· en· W4403587244 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Angel Alois Osorio Manyari, Joel Davis Osorio Manyari, Francisco Gonzalez Caballero, Sjaak Pouwels

Bibliographic record

VenueObesity Pillars · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBariatric Surgery and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBody mass indexType 2 Diabetes MellitusMedicineType 2 diabetesGerontologyIndex (typography)Diabetes mellitusInternal medicineEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: has not been widely reported. Methods: were considered. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Results: Of the 1175 studies screened, 21 studies (11 prospective and 10 retrospective), including 1005 patients, were selected. Only one study had a control group. The longest follow-up was 60 months. The results showed significant improvement in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting blood glucose (FBG), 2-h plasma glucose (2hPG), homeostasis model assessment for insulin resistance index (HOMA-IR), fasting C-peptide, triglycerides, total cholesterol, and a reduction in the use of oral hypoglycemic agents/insulin at 12, 24, 36, and 60 months after metabolic surgery. The most common surgical complications observed were anemia (2.1 %-33 %), marginal ulcer (4.2 %-17.3 %), gastrointestinal bleeding (1.9 %-12 %), anastomotic leak (2.1 %-3.5 %), anastomotic stenosis (2.1 %-3.5 %), reoperation (1.18 %), and a mortality rate of zero. Conclusions: after metabolic surgery. Future research with controlled studies should focus on preoperative patient selection criteria beyond just the BMI cutoff.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.006
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.245 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObesity PillarsSame topicBariatric Surgery and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207