ArticleObesity surgery2025
Clinical Obesity Through the Lens of Context-Aware Large Language Models.
Article in Obesity surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
- Generative Artificial Intelligence for Qualitative Methods in Health Research: Rapid Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Review
- Incidence and Risk Factors of Dumping Syndrome After One-Anastomosis Gastric Bypass (OAGB).Obesity surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore whether large language models can assist in refining complex medical definitions, this proof-of-concept study evaluated the capacity of three advanced systems, ChatGPT-4, Gemini 1.5 Pro, and Grok 3, to interpret, critique, and build upon existing definitions of clinical obesity, with particular reference to the Lancet Commission on the Definition and Diagnosis of Clinical Obesity. MATERIALS AND
methodsFive structured questions were used in a three-stage qualitative design: (1) baseline responses without external references, (2) context-informed responses incorporating the Lancet Commission report, and (3) generative redefinition of clinical obesity. Model outputs were reviewed by a medical expert for accuracy, originality, and concordance with established guidelines.
resultsWithout contextual guidance, large language models produced generalized definitions largely reflecting public-domain sources. Supplying the Lancet Commission report yielded more precise, conceptually consistent, and clinically relevant outputs. In the generative phase, all models proposed refined definitions that addressed recognized gaps in existing frameworks, emphasizing functional impairment, psychosocial dimensions, and the limitations of body mass index as a diagnostic criterion.
conclusionWhen anchored to authoritative, domain-specific evidence, large language models can serve as adjunctive tools for knowledge synthesis, clarifying and strengthening complex medical constructs. Integrating human expertise with artificial intelligence under transparent and ethically governed conditions may enable the development of more inclusive, adaptive, and evidence-based clinical definitions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41160303What 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.