MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411112157 · doi:10.1186/s43066-025-00425-z

The effect of bariatric surgery on anthropometric indices, gut microbiome, and microbial metabolites in patients with NAFLD: a systematic review

2025· review· en· W4411112157 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hanieh‐Sadat Ejtahed, Mohammad Reza Fadaeifard, Fateme Ziamanesh, Shirin Hasani‐Ranjbar, Mahboobeh Hemmatabadi, Nooshin Shirzad

Bibliographic record

VenueEgyptian Liver Journal · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTehran University of Medical Sciences and Health Services
KeywordsMedicineMicrobiomeGut microbiomeAnthropometryGut floraInternal medicineBioinformaticsBiologyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Obesity is a global health challenge linked with NAFLD (nonalcoholic fatty liver disease). Bariatric surgery can induce NAFLD remission by altering gut microbiota. This study evaluates bariatric surgery’s effects on anthropometric indices, gut microbiota, and microbial metabolites in NAFLD patients. Data from major databases up to October 2023 were analyzed. Studies were assessed for quality using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale (NOS). Eleven studies were reviewed. Bariatric surgery increased Bacteroides , Akkermansia , and “Proteobacteria” and decreased “Actinomycetota.” It also altered bile acid profiles, reducing primary conjugated bile acids and increasing secondary conjugated bile acids, particularly glycoursodeoxycholic acid (GUDCA). Improvements in body mass index were observed in NAFLD patient’s post-surgery. Bariatric surgery impacts gut microbiota and bile acid profiles, playing a potential role in NAFLD remission. Further extensive studies are required due to study inconsistencies.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEgyptian Liver JournalSame topicLiver Disease Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207