Body Contouring Surgery after Bariatric Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Body-contouring surgery can be a solution to excess skin folds following bariatric surgery. Many patients desire body-contouring surgery, but the cost of the procedure may be a limiting factor. This study aims to examine barriers to access and to compare socioeconomic variables and psychological variables between bariatric surgery patients who have undergone body contouring and those who have not. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, a questionnaire packet was administered to (1) patients who underwent bariatric but not body-contouring surgery and (2) patients who underwent both. The questionnaire included perceived barriers to body-contouring surgery, socioeconomic barriers, measures of anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder seven-item scale), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire nine-item scale), and quality of life (Short Form-36). RESULTS: Among the 58 study participants, 93.1 percent reported having excess skin folds. Of this sample, 95.4 percent desired body-contouring surgery, and the majority (87.8 percent) of this subsample identified cost as the major barrier to access. Mean scores on the Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale (6.08 ± 5.97 versus 3.50 ± 3.10; p = 0.030) and the Patient Health Questionnaire (6.40 ± 6.77 versus 2.40 ± 2.37; p = 0.002) were significantly higher for the bariatric surgery group versus bariatric surgery plus body contouring group. Patients in the latter group had significantly higher Short Form-36 physical health component scores (56.80 ± 4.88 versus 49.57 ± 8.25; p = 0.010). CONCLUSIONS: Bariatric surgery patients who desire body-contouring surgery perceive cost as a major barrier. Patients undergoing body-contouring surgery may experience improved physical quality of life but not mental quality of life; however, body-contouring surgery may improve aspects of depression and anxiety.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".