Utility Outcome Assessment of the Aging Neck following Massive Weight Loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The authors set out to quantify the health state utility assessment of living with the physical appearance of the aging neck following massive weight loss. Described utility scores may help to establish the health burden of the aging neck in the growing bariatric patient population. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort observational study. SETTING: Tertiary referral medical center. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Three validated tools were used to determine utility scores for living with an aging neck: visual analog scale (VAS), time trade-off (TTO), and standard gamble (SG). A 5-point Likert scale was used to evaluate the subjects' ease of understanding. A prospective sample of volunteers from the general population and medical students was used for this assessment. RESULTS: In total, 118 prospective volunteers were included in the survey. All measures (VAS, TTO, SG); (0.89 ± 0.07, 0.94 ± 0.08, and 0.95 ± 0.10, respectively) varied (P < .0001) from the corresponding ones for monocular blindness (0.62 ± 0.18, 0.87 ± 0.15, and 0.85 ± 0.20, respectively) and binocular blindness (0.32 ± 0.18, 0.66 ± 0.25, and 0.64 ± 0.28, respectively). CONCLUSION: The authors objectified the health state of living with an aging neck in the massive weight loss patient with utility scores (TTO, 0.94) comparable with those living with obstructive sleep apnea. This sample population, if faced with an aging neck following massive weight loss, would undertake a neck rejuvenation procedure with a theoretical 5% chance of mortality and would be willing to trade 2.1 years of remaining life-years to attain this procedure.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".