IBC Oxford University Oral Abstract 46 - Bariatric surgery for adolescent obesity: what is the current evidence?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to assess the impact of bariatric surgical procedures on weight reduction in adolescents. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB), and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) were evaluated, along with their associated complications. Methods We conducted a systematic review following PRISMA and Cochrane Handbook guidelines, searching databases from inception to May 12, 2023. Inclusion criteria comprised studies in the English language investigating the effects of bariatric surgery on weight loss, reporting BMI outcomes, and involving human adolescents. The quality assessment used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the National Institutes of Health tool, and the meta-analysis was conducted using Stata software. Results From 1,826 initial studies, 56 met our inclusion criteria, and 45 were included in the meta-analysis. LSG and LAGB showed significant body mass index (BMI) reductions up to the 60th postoperative week (LSG: −10.008, P = 0.002; LAGB: −9.684, P = 0.003). Also, LRYGB demonstrated a significant and sustained BMI reduction, notably at 24th postoperative weeks (−18.076, P < 0.001) and 36th postoperative weeks (−18.145, P < 0.001). Minimal complications were reported after LRYGB and LAGB. However, LSG was associated with a 1% incidence of hernia (Relative Risk (RR) = 0.01, P = 0.001), an 11% occurrence of cholecystectomy (RR = 1.1, P = 0.01), and a 10% leak incidence (RR = 1.01, P = 0.01). Conclusion This systematic review and meta-analysis highlights the efficacy of bariatric surgery in reducing BMI among adolescents. LSG, LAGB, and LRYGB all yielded significant and sustained BMI reductions. While complications were generally low, LSG exhibited specific risks, emphasizing the importance of individualized patient assessment.
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 | 0.019 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.119 | 0.008 |
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".