MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417417688 · doi:10.28982/josam.8234

Abdominal pain post bariatric procedure: What is the cause?

2025· article· W4417417688 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Surgery and Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicOmental and Epiploic Conditions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLaparoscopyAbdominal painGastric bypassAbdominal surgeryComplicationAcute abdominal painMesenteric ischemiaInfarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Omental ischemia after bariatric surgery is a rare cause of abdominal pain. We report a case of a 42-year-old female with a history of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) presenting with abdominal pain. Despite biochemical, radiologic, and endoscopic investigation, no cause was identified. Ultimately, diagnostic laparoscopy revealed ischemic omentum. Post-operatively, her symptoms resolved. This case highlights the diagnostic challenges in patients post-RYGB presenting with abdominal pain with no clear cause. Division of the omentum is common practice during RYGB in the case of an antecolic Roux limb. This may predispose patients to omental infarction and ischemia, and as such, suspicion should be high when initial investigations are equivocal. The potential role of omental division during RYGB warrants further investigation. Furthermore, this case reinforces the importance of diagnostic laparoscopy in select cases. Rare causes of abdominal pain, such as omental ischemia, should be considered in patients who are post- RYGB. When initial investigations are negative, early diagnostic laparoscopy should be considered.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.527
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.265 · 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