Physical activity and sitting time in bariatric surgery patients 1–16 years post‐surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical activity (PA) is an important adjunct to bariatric surgery in the treatment of severe obesity; however, patient PA levels prior to and in the short-term following surgery are usually low. Scarce data exist describing PA and sedentary behaviours in the long term following surgery. The objectives were to describe PA and sitting time in bariatric patients 1-16 years post-surgery and assess their associations with patient, surgery and weight-loss characteristics. A total of 398 bariatric patients (73% female; mean age 47 ± 11 years, mean 6 ± 4 years since surgery) completed a telephone questionnaire. Patients reported moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA: # sessions week(-1) ≥30 min), sitting time (h d(-1)) and change in PA and sitting time vs. pre-surgery (more/same/less). Associations with patient, surgery and weight-loss characteristics were assessed. Only 53% of patients reported ≥1 session week(-1) MVPA, mean sitting time was 7 ± 4 h d(-1), 74% of patients reported more PA and 53% reported less sitting, now vs. pre-surgery. Age, sex, smoking status, pre-surgery body mass index, time-since-surgery and percent excess weight lost were significantly associated with PA and/or sitting outcomes. Patients currently experiencing ≥50% excess weight loss had over three times the odds of reporting ≥1 session week(-1) MVPA (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] 3.28 [1.57, 6.89]) and almost four times greater odds of reporting 'more' PA vs. pre-surgery (3.78 [2.15, 6.62]) compared with their less successful counterparts. Results point to low PA and high sedentariness among bariatric patients in the long-term following surgery, associated with several characteristics. Associations with long-term weight management highlight the need for tailored interventions to promote active living in this patient population.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".