Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41160303›Full record

ArticleObesity surgery2025

Clinical Obesity Through the Lens of Context-Aware Large Language Models.

Mohammad Kermansaravi, Ricardo V Cohen

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Mohammad KermansaraviDepartment of Surgery, Minimally Invasive Surgery Research Center, Division of Minimally Invasive and Bariatric Surgery, Hazrat-E Fatemeh Hospital, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. mkermansaravi@yahoo.com.
Ricardo V CohenThe Center for the Treatment of Obesity and Diabetes, Hospital Alemao Oswaldo Cruz, Sao Paulo, Brazil. ricardo.cohen@prestador.haoc.com.br.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

LanguageObesityTerminology as TopicBody Mass IndexHumansLarge Language ModelsProof of Concept StudyArtificial intelligenceClinical obesityCollaborative intelligenceContext injectionLarge language models

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.