Deutschsprachige Validierung des Body-Q – standardisiertes PRO-Messinstrument nach bariatrischen und körperformenden Eingriffen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most important parts of result evaluation in plastic surgery, especially postbariatric and body-contouring surgery, is the appraisal of changes in patients' quality of life after treatment. Standardised assessments of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are indispensable.BODY-Q (A. Klassen et al.) is a multifaceted, valid PRO instrument comprising a total of 26 scales for the evaluation of multiple factors of everyday life in order to quantify well-being, satisfaction and functionality. Each scale contains 4-10 statements, which have to be rated by patients.The BODY-Q was created pursuant to ISPOR (International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research) standards and subjected to psychometric tests with great results. It is considered a standard PRO instrument for quality of life in postbariatric and body-contouring surgery.In order to expand the applicability of standardised questionnaires, ISPOR established linguistic validation guidelines, which have been applied to the BODY-Q in Dutch, Danish, Finnish and Polish.In this study, German linguistic validation was completed applying the standardised guidelines. First the BODY-Q was translated in consensus with medical expertise. Then a certified translator produced a backwards translation, which was commented on by the author. After appropriate changes were made in due consideration of these comments, interviews with patients were conducted to remove any sources of content-related misconception. Finally, the translated version was applied on patients. All the scales were translated to an easily understandable questionnaire reliable in form and content. An international collaboration aiming to centralise the results has started. Further linguistic validation procedures in other languages have been initiated, and an international cohort structure is planned to be established for body-contouring procedures in order to systematically improve treatment quality in plastic 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 | 0.079 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".