Metabolic and bariatric surgery: Postoperative management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RECOMMENDATIONS 1. HCPs can encourage PLWO who have undergone MBS to participate in and maximise their access to behavioural interventions and allied health services at an MBS centre (Level 2a, Grade B). 2. We suggest that MBS centres communicate a comprehensive care plan to primary HCPs for patients who are discharged, including MBS procedure, emergency contact numbers, annual blood tests required, long-term vitamin and mineral supplements, medications, behavioural interventions, and when to refer back (Level 4, Grade D, Consensus). 3. We suggest that after a PLWO has been discharged from the MBS centre, HCPs should annually review nutritional intake, activity, compliance with multivitamin and mineral supplements and weight, as well as assess comorbidities, order laboratory tests to assess for nutritional deficiencies, and investigate abnormal results and treat as required (Level 4, Grade D, Consensus). 4. We suggest that HCPs consider referral back to the MBS centre or to a local bariatric medicine specialist for technical or gastrointestinal symptoms, nutritional issues, pregnancy, psychological support, weight regain, or other medical issues related to MBS as described in this chapter (Level 4, Grade D, Consensus). 5. We suggest that MBS centres provide appropriate follow-up and laboratory tests at regular intervals after surgery with access to appropriate HCPs (dietitian, nurse, social worker, surgeon, bariatric physician, psychologist/psychiatrist) until discharge/referral to primary care level is deemed appropriate for the patient (Level 4, Grade D, Consensus).
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.010 |
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".