MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Physical Activity Levels and Smoking Status in Relation to Weight Control after Bariatric Surgery

2018· article· en· W2806052139 on OpenAlexaff
Ryan E.R. Reid, Nathan A. Chiarlitti, Alexandra Sirois, Patrick Delisle-Houde, Nicolas V. Christou, Ross E. Andersen

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBariatric Surgery and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePhysical activityObesityWeight lossInternal medicineBody mass indexSmoking cessationPhysiologySurgeryPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Smokers typically exhibit lower body weights than non-smokers despite poorer metabolic and physiologic profiles. Nicotine, an appetite suppressant found in cigarettes and cigars, may play a role in weight control. Physical activity also contributes to lower body weights; however, this simultaneously reduces all-cause mortality, risk of coronary artery disease, and other chronic conditions. PURPOSE: To investigate if smoking status has an impact on weight loss and physical activity levels in patients 1-17 years after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). METHODS: A total of 509 individuals who had previously undergone RYGB (1-17 years post) were recruited for this study. To assess physical activity habits, participants were asked, “How many times per week do you exercise for 30 min or more at an intensity that makes you sweat or breathe hard?” Participants were also asked if they were a current smoker, ex-smoker or never smoked. RESULTS: The sample consisted of 22% smokers (114 total, 81 females), 47% never- smokers (239 total, 190 females) and 31% ex-smokers (156 total, 120 females). There were no significant differences in smoking status (p=.45) or physical activity (p=.57) between sexes. Current smokers had the highest BMI change (-21.2±.8kg/m2) compared to both never-smokers (-18.8±.6kg/m2; p=.01) and ex-smokers (-18.7±.7kg/m2; p=.02) while there was no significant difference between never-smokers and ex-smokers (p=.97). Ex-smokers reported being significantly more active (1.7±1.9bouts) compared to current smokers (1.1±1.7bouts; p=.01) while there were no differences in activity between never-smokers (1.5±1.7bouts) and current smokers (p=.07). CONCLUSIONS: Although smokers lost the greatest amount of weight post-surgery, they also reported being inadequately active. Post-surgical follow-ups should evaluate numerous health measures as indicators of surgical success, as long term weight change may also be equally affected by both healthy and unhealthy habits.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicBariatric Surgery and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→