Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 275

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A New Paradigm for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Could It Be a Disease of the Foregut?

Open access
Hickey, Matthew S., Pories, Walter J., MacDonald, Kenneth G., Cory, Kelly A., Dohm, G. Lynis, Swanson, Melvin S., Israel, Richard G., Barakat, Hisham A., Considine, Robert V., Caro, Jose F., Houmard, Joseph A.·1998·Annals of Surgery

Abstract

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: We previously reported, in a study of 608 patients, that the gastric bypass operation (GB) controls type 2 diabetes mellitus in the morbidly obese patient more effectively than any medical therapy. Further, we showed for the first time that it was possible to reduce the mortality from diabetes; GB reduced the chance of dying from 4.5% per year to 1% per year. This control of diabetes has been ascribed to the weight loss induced by the operation. These studies, in weight-stable women, were designed to determine whether weight loss was really the important factor. METHODS: Fasting plasma insulin, fasting plasma glucose, minimal model-derived insulin sensitivity and leptin levels were measured in carefully matched cohorts: six women who had undergone GB and had been stable at their lowered weight 24 to 30 months after surgery versus a control group of six women who did not undergo surgery and were similarly weight-stable. The two groups were matched in age, percentage of fat, body mass index, waist circumference, and aerobic capacity. RESULTS: Even though the two groups of patients were closely matched in weight, age, percentage of fat, and even aerobic capacity, and with both groups maintaining stable weights, the surgical group demonstrated significantly lower levels of serum leptin, fasting plasma insulin, and fasting plasma glucose compared to the control group. Similarly, minimal model-derived insulin sensitivity was significantly higher in the surgical group. Finally, self-reported food intake was significantly lower in the surgical group. CONCLUSIONS: Weight loss is not the reason why GB controls diabetes mellitus. Instead, bypassing the foregut and reducing food intake produce the profound long-term alterations in glucose metabolism and insulin action. These findings suggest that our current paradigms of type 2 diabetes mellitus deserve review. The critical lesion may lie in abnormal signals from the gut.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00000658-199805000-00004

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 18 references

Cited by

See all 275

Metadata

Authors
Hickey, M. S., Pories, W. J., MacDonald, K. G., Cory, K. A., Dohm, G. L., Swanson, M. S., Israel, R. G., Barakat, H. A., Considine, R. V., Caro, J. F., & Houmard, J. A.
Venue
Annals of Surgery
Published
1998-05
Volume
227
Issue
5
Pages
637-644
ISSN
0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2021374152
Cited by
275
References
18
FWCI
4.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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.

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A New Paradigm for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Could It Be a Disease of the Foregut? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00000658-199805000-00004
The paper
Hickey, M. S., Pories, W. J., MacDonald, K. G., Cory, K. A., Dohm, G. L., Swanson, M. S., Israel, R. G., Barakat, H. A., Considine, R. V., Caro, J. F., & Houmard, J. A. (1998). A New Paradigm for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Could It Be a Disease of the Foregut? Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-199805000-00004

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.