Do clinical and behavioural correlates of obese patients seeking bariatric surgery differ from those of individuals involved in conservative weight loss programme?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical practice has suggested that, in severely obese patients seeking bariatric surgery, clinical conditions, behavioural characteristics and psychological status might all differ from those of their counterparts starting conventional conservative therapy. METHODS: Two groups of obese patients with closely similar body mass values were considered. The first group included individuals voluntarily and spontaneously seeking biliopancreatic diversion and the second group comprised patients at the beginning of a weight loss programme. After anthropometric and metabolic evaluation, the patients underwent an alimentary interview; eating behaviour and psychological status were assessed by Three Factor Eating Questionnaire and by Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS). RESULTS: Among bariatric candidates, a greater number of individuals with type 2 diabetes and dyslipidaemia and high tendency to disinhibition and susceptibility to hunger scores was observed, whereas the other aspects of eating pattern were essentially similar. In the two groups, no difference in TAS score and or number of patients with alexithymic traits was observed. Finally, a logistic regression model showed that only age and metabolic derangement predicted the bariatric option, whereas eating behaviour or psychological status did not influence individual therapeutic choice. CONCLUSIONS: Independently of the degree of obesity, bariatric surgery was requested by the more metabolically deranged patients, whereas, in the surgical candidates, the eating pattern and psychological conditions were very similar to those of obese persons at the beginning of a conservative weight loss programme. These results suggest a highly realistic and practical attitude in severely obese patients towards obesity and bariatric surgery.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".