Cited by 338Bariatric Surgery and OutcomesRegulation of Appetite and ObesityMinimally Invasive Surgical Techniques

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 46 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 27 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Prospective study of gut hormone and metabolic changes after adjustable gastric banding and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

Open access
Korner, J, Inabnet, W, Febres, G, Conwell, I M, McMahon, D J, Salas, R, Taveras, C, Schrope, B, Bessler, M·2009·International Journal of Obesity

Abstract

Objective:The objective of this study was to quantify hormones that regulate energy and glucose homeostasis to establish possible mechanisms for the greater efficacy of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) compared with laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) in achieving weight loss and improved insulin sensitivity.Design:Longitudinal study of patients undergoing LAGB (n=15) and RYGB (n=28) who were studied before surgery and at 2, 12, 26 and 52 weeks afterwards.Measurements:Fasting blood samples were drawn at each visit. Postprandial blood samples were also obtained before surgery and at 26 and 52 weeks. Samples were assayed for peptide YY (PYY), ghrelin, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1), glucose, insulin, leptin, thyrotropic hormone, free T4 and free T3.Results:At 1 year there was greater weight loss in RYGB compared with LAGB patients (30 vs 15%), but final body mass index was similar (34 vs 33 kg m−2). At week 52, area under the curve (AUC) for PYY in RYGB subjects was greater than LAGB (P<0.01). GLP-1 levels at 30 min after meal were threefold greater after RYGB compared with LAGB (P<0.001). Conversely, ghrelin AUC increased after LAGB at week 52 (P<0.05) but tended to decrease after RYGB. Fasting glucose, insulin, and leptin and homeostasis model of assessment (HOMA-IR) decreased in both groups over time but were significantly lower at week 52 after RYGB compared with LAGB. The change in leptin correlated significantly with weight loss in LAGB (r=0.86) and RYGB (r=0.77), however, HOMA-IR correlated significantly with weight loss only in LAGB (r=0.78), and not RYGB (r=0.15). There was a significant decrease in free T3 (P<0.01) after RYGB.Conclusions:Differences in levels of gut hormones may play a role in promoting greater weight loss and insulin sensitivity after RYGB compared with LAGB, however, weight loss may be limited by decreases in free T3 and leptin.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/ijo.2009.79

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

37 Own result · 17 Not checked yet · 11 Own method · 8 Own interpretation

Verify all 27 references — free account

Show all 39 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 23
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 14
34 of 34
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The non-randomized LAGB and RYGB groups are comparable enough that between-group differences in outcomes can be attributed to the procedures.

    “The choice of bariatric procedure was based on the preference of surgeon and patient.”
    “body weight (112 ± 5 vs 128 ± 5 kg; P = 0.056) and BMI (41 ± 1 vs 48 ± 1 kg/m2; P < 0.001) were less in LAGB compared with RYGB.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Most subjects had not reached their nadir weight at 1 year.

    “Since most of our subjects were unlikely to have achieved their nadir weight at 1 year, it may be too early to detect significant correlations between levels of L cell peptides and ultimate response to surgery.”
2 of 2

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 46 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Korner, J., Inabnet, W., Febres, G., Conwell, I. M., McMahon, D. J., Salas, R., Taveras, C., Schrope, B., & Bessler, M.
Affiliations
Columbia University (US)
Venue
International Journal of Obesity
Published
2009-05-05
Volume
33
Issue
7
Pages
786-795
ISSN
  • 0307-0565 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-5497
OpenAlex
W2082780134
Cited by
338
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 33 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 32 · 2012: 33
FWCI
35.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Obesity (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R01DK072011, DK072011)
  • National Center for Research Resources (UL1RR024156, RR 00645, M01RR000645)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Bariatric Surgery and Outcomes
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Endocrine and Autonomic Systems › Regulation of Appetite and Obesity
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Minimally Invasive Surgical Techniques
Keywords
gastric banding, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, bariatric surgery, gastrointestinal hormones, peptide YY, ghrelin, glucagon-like peptide-1, leptin, insulin resistance, weight loss, glucose homeostasis, thyroid hormones, energy homeostasis, postprandial hormone secretion, HOMA-IR, free T3
MeSH terms
Blood Glucose, Female, Humans, Insulin Resistance, Male, Middle Aged, Obesity, Morbid, Prospective Studies, Gastric Bypass, Gastroplasty, Weight Loss, Postprandial Period, Glucagon-Like Peptide 1

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review