Receptivity to Bariatric Surgery in Qualified Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives. Bariatric surgery has been shown to be an effective intervention for weight loss and diabetes management. Despite this, many patients qualified for bariatric surgery are not interested in undergoing the procedure. The objective of this study is to determine the factors influencing receptivity to bariatric surgery among those who qualify for the procedure. Methods. Patients attending a publicly funded weight management clinic who qualified for bariatric surgery were asked to complete an elective questionnaire between February 2013 and April 2014. Results. A total of 371 patients (72% female) completed the questionnaire. Only 87 of 371 (23%) participants were interested in bariatric surgery. Individuals interested in bariatric surgery had a higher BMI (48.0 versus 46.2 kg/m(2), P = 0.03) and believed that they would lose more weight with surgery (51 versus 44 kg, P = 0.0069). Those who scored highly on past weight loss success and financial concerns were less likely to be interested in bariatric surgery, whereas those who scored highly on high receptivity to surgery and positive social support were more likely to be interested in bariatric surgery. Conclusion. Although participants overestimated the effect of bariatric surgery on weight loss, most were still not interested in bariatric surgery.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".