Thigh Laxity After Massive Weight Loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The presence of excess skin after massive weight loss, particularly in the thighs, not only contributes to a negative body image but can also lead to functional deficits in mobility. In the present study, we quantified the health state utility of living with excess skin in the thighs in an attempt to objectively establish the burden on the quality of life in patients living with excess thigh skin laxity. METHOD: Using visual analog scale (VAS), time trade-off (TTO), and standard gamble (SG), we compared the utility outcome scores for thigh skin excess with monocular and binocular blindness from a prospective sample of medical students and the general population. Utility scores were compared using paired t test. Linear regression was performed using age, race, and education as independent predictors of each of the utility scores. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-four prospective participants were enrolled during a 6-month period, and 112 participants met our inclusion criteria. The utility outcome scores for thigh lift (VAS, TTO, and SG, 0.77 ± 0.15, 0.90 ± 0.11, and 0.89 ± 0.14, respectively) were statistically different from binocular blindness (VAS, TTO, and SG, 0.37 ± 0.18, 0.70 ± 0.23, and 0.70 ± 0.26; P < 0.001), but other than VAS (0.67 ± 0.15, P < 0.001), similar to monocular blindness (TTO and SG, 0.89 ± 0.13 and 0.81 ± 0.14, respectively; P > 0.05). SG (0.89 ± 0.14 vs 0.97 ± 0.02, P = 0.003) and TTO (0.89 ± 0.11 vs 0.95 ± 0.03, P = 0.038) were different between general population and medical students, respectively, corresponding to 3.96 versus 1.80 potential years willing to be traded (P < 0.05). Additionally, SG was higher in whites versus nonwhites who were willing to take a potential 8% chance of mortality compared to 15%, respectively (P = 0.001), to achieve "perfect" health. CONCLUSIONS: We have objectified the utility of living with thigh deformity after massive weight loss. Our sample population if faced with the condition was willing to sacrifice a potential 3.6 years of life and potentially undergo a procedure with 11% chance of mortality to address excess thigh laxity.
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) | 0.001 | 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".