ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
Using artificial intelligence to evaluate adherence to best practices in one anastomosis gastric bypass: first steps in a real-world setting.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Evolution of Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery in the Artificial Intelligence Era: A Comprehensive Systematic Review of Current Applications and Clinical Implications.Obesity surgery · 2026Pooled it
- AI-based computer vision as an adjunct tool for CVS documentation in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSafety in one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) is judged by outcomes, but it seems reasonable to utilize best practices for safety, whose performance can be evaluated and therefore improved. We aimed to test an artificial intelligence-based model in real world for the evaluation of adherence to best practices in OAGB.Please check and confirm that the authors and their respective affiliations have been correctly identified and amend if necessary. OK
methodsA retrospective single-center study of 89 consecutive OAGB videos was captured and analyzed by an artificial intelligence platform (10/2020-12/2023). The platform currently provides assessment of four elements, including bougie insertion, full division of pouch, view of Treitz ligament, and leak test performed. Two bariatric surgeons viewed all videos, categorizing these elements into Yes/No adherence. Intra-rater and inter-rater agreements were computed. The estimates found in greatest consensus were used to determine the model's performance. Clinical data retrieval was performed.
resultsVideos included primary (71.9%) and conversion (28.1%) OAGB. Patients' age was 41.5 ± 13.6y and body mass index 42.0 ± 5.7 kg/m2. Anastomosis width was 40 mm (IQR, 30-45), and biliopancreatic limb length was 200 cm (IQR, 180-200). Operative duration was 69.1 min (IQR 55.3-97.4), mainly spent on gastric transection (26%) and anastomosis (45%). Surgeons' intra-rater overall agreements ranged 93-100% (kappa 0.57-1). Inter-rater overall agreements increased to 99-100% (kappa 0.95-1) in the second review, set as reference point to the model. The model's overall accuracy ranged 82-98%, sensitivity 91-94%, and positive predictive value 88-99%. Specificity ranged 17-92% and negative predictive value 20-68%.
conclusionThe model appears to have high accuracy, sensitivity, and positive predictive value for evaluating adherence to best practices for safety in OAGB. Considering the paucity of negative estimates in our study, more low-performance cases are needed to reliably define the model's specificity and negative predictive value. Adding more best practices, tested in multi-center studies will enable cross-border standardization of the procedure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.