An overview of obesity‐specific quality of life questionnaires
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The measurement of quality of life in patients with obesity is useful to evaluate the effects of treatment (including bariatric surgery) and may influence the development of clinical pathways, service provision, healthcare expenditures and public health policy. Consequently, clinicians, researchers and policy makers must rely on valid measurement instruments. We reviewed 11 obesity-specific quality of life questionnaires and classified them according to their domain of interest and described their measurement properties (specifications, validity, reliability, responsiveness and interpretability). We found that (i) nine questionnaires were developed specifically to be used as evaluative instruments in clinical trials; (ii) only three targeted populations with morbid obesity (body mass index > 40 kg m(-2)); (iii) construct validity was properly studied in three questionnaires; (iv) demonstration of responsiveness from independent randomized controlled trials was available for two of the 11 questionnaires; (v) keys to interpretation of scores were provided for three questionnaires. Future research should include further validation and a better definition of the interpretability of existing instruments.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".