MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416599250 · doi:10.4240/wjgs.v17.i11.109426

One-anastomosis gastric bypass <i>vs</i> sleeve gastrectomy for diabetes remission and weight loss: A meta-analysis

2025· article· en· W4416599250 on OpenAlex
Hyder Osman Mirghani

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBariatric Surgery and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSleeve gastrectomyGastric bypassDiabetes mellitusWeight lossGastrectomyClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND One-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) are surgical procedures increasingly performed for weight loss and to achieve remission of diabetes mellitus. Literature comparing the medium-term efficacy of these two procedures is scarce. As such, a meta-analysis comparing OAGB and SG in terms of diabetes remission (DR) and percentage of excess weight loss (EWL) is warranted. AIM To compare OAGB and SG in terms of DR and EWL% in the medium term. METHODS A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochran Library, and Web of Science for relevant articles, from inception through April 2025, using the keywords “one-anastomosis gastric bypass”, “sleeve gastrectomy”, “mini-gastric bypass”, “diabetes remission”, “one-anastomosis”, and “excess weight loss”. Clinical trials, prospective, retrospective and case-control studies were included; cross-sectional studies, case reports, editorials, and opinions were excluded. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to assess the quality of included studies, and RevMan version 5.4 was used for data analyses. RESULTS A total of 1360 articles were identified, and 35 studies were retrieved of which 32 were included in the final analysis. Three full texts were excluded as they did not include data on DR or EWL%. OAGB achieved higher DR than SG at 1 year following surgery [odds ratio (OR) = 1.77, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.22-2.57, I 2 = 76%]. However, DR rates were similar at 3 years and 5 years following surgery (OR = 0.82, 95%CI: 0.61-1.10, I 2 = 23% and OR = 0.92, 95%CI: 0.31-2.72, I 2 = 75%, respectively). OAGB showed higher EWL% at 1 year (OR = 9.30, 95%CI: 6.45-12.15, I 2 = 91%), 3 years (OR = 10.02, 95%CI: 9.40-10.64, I 2 = 22%), and 5 years (OR = 11.61, 95%CI: 3.74-19.48, I 2 = 97%). OAGB showed higher late complications than adjustable SG. The results were not different in sub-group analysis including only clinical trials, observational studies, and removing studies including super-obese patients and studies contributing most to heterogeneity. CONCLUSION In the medium term, DR rates were similar between OAGB and SG; however, OAGB showed higher EWL% than SG, and late complications were higher in OAGB. Clinical trials investigating the predictors of DR and EWL% are recommended.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.411
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.241 · 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