Investigating the relationship between psychosocial functioning and bariatric surgical candidacy and outcomes in morbidly obese patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Obese patients, most notably those suffering from morbid obesity (class III or BMI > 40), often suffer from a variety physical and psychiatric co-morbidity. Given the severity of the consequences of obesity, bariatric surgery is now considered a viable intervention strategy. Though it has been shown to be effective, the long-term success of bariatric surgery is highly dependent on patient compliance and adherence. The current study sought to address the role of psychosocial functioning on bariatric surgical candidacy and outcomes. Methods: A total of 109 morbidly obese individuals seeking bariatric surgery completed a series of questionnaires, pre and post (post 1 year) that sought to assess; Demographic Information, Health Profile, Stress, Depression, Anxiety, Self-Esteem, Body Image, Eating Disorder, Social Support, and Expectations. Results: Results from this study indicated that 83 (76.1%) patients scored above cutoff for stress, while 93 (85.3%) had significantly elevated anxiety. In addition, 44 (40.3%) patients had history of depression, 26 (23.8%) a history of eating disorder, and 88 (80.7%) outlined unrealistic expectations. Overall, a total of 61 (56%) of patients underwent bariatric surgery, with 43 (70.5%) showing post-operative improvements in psychosocial functioning (depression, stress, self-esteem). Post-operative success (weight loss) was also correlated with improved psychosocial status. Conclusion: Given the severity of the physical and psychiatric co-morbidity associated with obesity, bariatric services should consider adopting a thorough psychosocial screening and treatment program of bariatric candidates in order to reduce potential risks and optimize results.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".