MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416528091 · doi:10.1016/j.obpill.2025.100232

Obesity pillars roundtable: Better together - combined obesity medicine and metabolic surgery care for the treatment of obesity

2025· article· en· W4416528091 on OpenAlexaff
Kristen Frederiksen, Reed A Berger-Fleishman, Ahmed Jad, Samer G. Mattar, Bharti Shetye

Bibliographic record

VenueObesity Pillars · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBariatric Surgery and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Health Authority
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsObesityMeaning (existential)Precision medicineMetabolic syndromeMEDLINEPsychological interventionSevere obesity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Obesity is a chronic, multifactorial, complex, and relapsing disease typically requiring treatment from various medical providers throughout the continuum of care. A natural overlap in medical and procedural obesity treatment therefore often exists during the course of treatment. Given this, the optimal treatment of the medically complex patient population may best be delivered either within multi-disciplinary teams, or through more effective collaboration with diverse specialists sharing the common interest of managing patients with obesity. The aim of this roundtable is to more deeply engage on issues surrounding the multi-disciplinary approach for the treatment of obesity, along with highlighting areas of opportunity for improving collaborative care. Methods: This roundtable review includes perspectives from two obesity medicine specialists and two metabolic bariatric surgeons, all with extensive experience in combining medical and surgical care. Results: While the panelists generally agreed upon core principles of combined obesity medicine and metabolic surgical care for the treatment of obesity, each had their own priorities and approach regarding the best ways to overlap care. Variances in perceptions included importance of procedural care versus use of pharmacotherapy. However, the panelists endorsed more collaborative work as vital for improving outcomes. Further identification of existing barriers and the creation of pathways for action will bring this work forward. Conclusions: Providing guidance on one universal approach to the care of patients with obesity is challenging due to the heterogeneity of patient populations and variance in practice patterns across the spectrum of care. The panel suggested adopting a continuum-of-care mindset, meaning that all available options should be considered for patients, either in sequence, or as adjuvant therapies, or as rescue options for patients who gain tolerance to a particular therapeutic modality. This approach is in keeping with the reality that obesity is a chronic, relapsing multifactorial disease.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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