IFSO Consensus on Definitions and Clinical Practice Guidelines for Obesity Management—an International Delphi Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This survey of international experts in obesity management was conducted to achieve consensus on standardized definitions and to identify areas of consensus and non-consensus in metabolic bariatric surgery (MBS) to assist in an algorithm of clinical practice guidelines for the management of obesity.A three-round Delphi survey with 136 statements was conducted by 43 experts in obesity management comprising 26 bariatric surgeons, 4 endoscopists, 8 endocrinologists, 2 nutritionists, 2 counsellors, an internist, and a pediatrician spanning six continents over a 2-day meeting in Hamburg, Germany. To reduce bias, voting was unanimous, and the statements were neither favorable nor unfavorable to the issue voted or evenly balanced between favorable and unfavorable. Consensus was defined as ≥ 70% inter-voter agreement.Consensus was reached on all 15 essential definitional and reporting statements, including initial suboptimal clinical response, baseline weight, recurrent weight gain, conversion, and revision surgery. Consensus was reached on 95/121 statements on the type of surgical procedures favoring Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, sleeve gastrectomy, and endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty. Moderate consensus was reached for sleeve gastrectomy single-anastomosis duodenoileostomy and none on the role of intra-gastric balloons. Consensus was reached for MBS in patients > 65 and < 18 years old, with a BMI > 50 kg/m2, and with various obesity-related complications such as type 2 diabetes, liver, and kidney disease.In this survey of 43 multi-disciplinary experts, consensus was reached on standardized definitions and reporting standards applicable to the whole medical community. An algorithm for treating patients with obesity was explored utilizing a thoughtful multimodal approach.
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 | 0.221 | 0.209 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".