Perception of patients after bariatric surgery on quality of life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed at understanding the perception of bariatric patients about their Quality of Life (QoL) after bariatric surgery.Methods: Descriptive and qualitative study performed at a reference hospital for bariatric surgery in the State of Ceara/Brazil. Subjects were 27 patients who were experiencing postoperative and data collection was made from interviews with semi-structured document. Data was subjected to qualitative content analysis, which allowed the emergence of categories: “In searching for a healthier life”; “The weight cycling villain and failure in other treatments”; “The meaning of quality of life and a reflection of obesity in daily life”; “The effects on quality of life of individuals after bariatric surgery”. The project was approved by the Ethics Committee (CEP 538/2011).Results: For most patients, QoL is defined as having a healthy life with the possibility of exercising without tiring easily, being able to eat properly, performing better at work and having a more active social life.Conclusions: Thus, it is seen that bariatric surgery was effective on QoL improvements on self-esteem, self-care, work performance, leisure and social relationships.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".