Interest, views and perceived barriers to bariatric surgery in patients with morbid obesity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of the study was to assess the interest, views and patient-perceived barriers to bariatric surgery among surgery-eligible patients. Surveys were completed at a weight management clinic and local hospital in Ontario, Canada. Patients were ≥18 years of age with a body mass index (BMI) >40 kg m(-2) or BMI > 35 kg m(-2) with ≥1 comorbidity. The sample included 105 participants, 73.3% female, with a mean BMI of 46.6 ± 7.1 kg m(-2) . Only 33.3% of participants were interested in surgery; 50.5% of participants were not interested and 16.2% had mixed feelings. Participants identified risks (69.5%) and side effects (57.1%) as significant surgical barriers. Interested participants were more likely to perceive themselves as obese, were unhappy with their current weight loss method and were less likely to fear surgery (P < 0.05). The prevalence of comorbidities was not different by surgical interest (P = 0.17). Despite the effectiveness of bariatric surgery, the majority of qualified patients are not interested in surgery mainly due to the perceived risk of surgery in general and satisfaction with current non-surgical weight loss efforts. The self-perception of obesity, as opposed to medical comorbidities, may be a stronger driver of the decision to have bariatric surgery. It is unclear if patients are aware of the effectiveness of bariatric surgery to help improve comorbidities or if bariatric surgery is perceived as being more cosmetic in nature.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".