Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Adjustable gastric banding (AGB) is quickly becoming the most popular bariatric operation performed in the United States and Canada. Patients are particularly fond of the sim-plicity of the tool, the relatively low morbidity of the surgery, the quick recovery, and overall results. The gastric band has evolved over its 35-year history into a very successful adjustable tool used to restrict food consumption and limit caloric intake. The percent of excessive weight loss after banding can range from 30%–60 % and depends on the time out from surgery. Along with weight loss, there is good resolution of the co-morbid conditions that are associated with excess weight and improvements in quality of life demonstrated after banding. Nutrition and follow up are extremely important after banding to ensure good compliance and adequate weight loss. Failure to follow the postoperative diet, exercise regiment, or mechanical failure of the band can lead to failure to lose adequate weight. While there are particular early and late complications associated with this surgery, the safety profile of the AGB is very appealing when compared to other bariatric operations. As we continue to reduce the morbidity of the procedure, the simple adjustable band concept has a lot of potential to remain a primary technique of maintaining long term weight loss. In conclusion, AGB has and continues to play an important role in the treat-
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 | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.890 | 0.765 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".