MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Influence of weight discrimination on weight loss goals and self‐selected weight loss interventions

2011· article· en· W1902070386 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Obesity · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicObesity and Health Practices
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeight lossMedicineObesityPsychological interventionIntervention (counseling)Weight managementPharmacotherapyPhysical therapyBody weightInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: What is already known about this subject • There is a discrepancy between clinical and patient goals for weight loss. • Evidence suggests that some bariatric patients highly value, and are willing to endure hardships for weight loss. • Obesity is commonly framed as an easily reversed and individual problem, which in turn promotes weight discrimination. What this study adds • Patient beliefs about weight loss are in accordance with social understandings of obesity but not with current treatment options. • Patients may not be willing to endure hardships for weight loss. • Weight discrimination may relate to how patients approach weight loss. SUMMARY: Bariatric patients report weight loss goals, which are three times higher than weight loss recommended by clinicians. It is unclear which weight loss interventions patients feel are necessary to reach these goals or whether responses associate with perceptions of weight discrimination. One hundred fifteen patients (BMI = 40.0 ± 6.9 kg m(-2) , age = 47.2 ± 12.2 years, 85% female, 77% reporting weight discrimination) were surveyed from weight management clinics. Participants reported ideal weight losses of 37.6 ± 16.7 kg (33% of initial weight), and the majority felt weight loss could be achieved through lifestyle changes such as improved physical activity (80%) or diet (52%), with fewer reporting pharmacotherapy (8%), surgery (12%) or genetic modification (7%) as necessary for goal attainment. Participants selecting lifestyle changes or pharmacotherapy for weight loss reported ideal weight loss goals that would generally be achievable through surgical means (32% and 33%, respectively), and participants selecting surgical intervention reported ideal goals at the upper end of what is generally achievable with this intervention (38%). All participants selecting surgery or genetic modifications reported experiencing weight discrimination. These results indicate a disparity between weight loss goals and selected interventions, and suggest that weight discrimination is associated with the selection of potentially riskier weight loss interventions.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.144
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.342 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it