An Examination of Recurrent Binge Eating and Body Image Dissatisfaction in Preoperative Bariatric Surgery Patients Enrolled in The Longitudinal Assessment of Bariatric Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Obesity is often a serious medical condition with many biopsychosocial risk factors and co-occurring conditions. Published data suggests that rates of obesity are increasing in the United States and around the globe. Obese individuals often have multiple medical conditions that place them at increased risk of premature death. These conditions include cardiac disease, pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus-type II and others. In addition, obese individuals are at increased risk of eating, mood and anxiety disorders. The most effective treatment for reducing weight in obese individuals and maintaining weight loss over time is bariatric surgery. While individuals undergoing this treatment can expect to lose 25-30% of their original body weight and experience other biopsychosocial benefits, 20-30% will not. This subset of patients will not experience significant weight loss, may regain lost weight, and often report lower quality of life and treatment satisfaction. Understanding the relationships between biopsychosocial risk factors common to presurgical bariatric patients may improve post-surgical outcomes.\nThe first aim of the current study was to examine the relationships between recurrent binge eating behavior and BMI, eating symptomatology, body image dissatisfaction, and depression. The second aim was to examine differences between two models of the Eating Disorder Examination interview. The first model being the original four-factor model commonly utilized to assess eating pathology and proposed by Fairburn and Cooper (1993); the second model is a three-factor model proposed by Grilo, Henderson, Bell and Crosby (2013). It was hypothesized there would be significant differences between sample groups (i.e., individuals endorsing recurrent binge eating and those that did not), across all biopsychosocial variables noted in the study. It was also predicted that there would be differences between groups using the different EDE models. Study participants included patients enrolled in the LABS-2 project at Oregon Health and Sciences University (OHSU) medical center in Portland, Oregon between 2007-2010. Participants (N = 59) included both female (n = 45) and male (n = 14) patients. Of these, 57 (96.6%) identified as Caucasian/White, one (1.8%) identified as French Canadian/Native American, and one (1.8%) identified as “mixed” (i.e., race/ethnicity).\nResults of the study indicated medium to large effect sizes associated with group differences on many dependent variables, EDE original 4-factor model: Eating Concern (d = .58), Shape Concern (d = .57), EDE 3-factor Global Score (d = .51), BSQ (d = .46), ASI-R (d = .52), Composite BID score (d = .51). However, only the Global Score from the original EDE four-factor model produced a significant difference between groups, (d = .77, u = 381.5, z = 1.98, p < .05). This suggests meaningful differences on eating symptomatology for those engaging in recurrent binge eating compared to those that do not. More generally, results suggest that the small sample size may have limited the statistical power of the study. Results further suggest the possibility of significant differences between individuals that endorse and do not endorse recurrent binge eating behaviors on eating symptomatology and body image dissatisfaction, but not BMI and depression. As such, screening for these patient characteristics may inform pre- and post-surgical treatment intended to promote favorable surgical outcomes. Future research may include a larger sample size to increase statistical power along with recruitment and participation of broader demographic profiles. Research may examine specific sub-constructs of each dependent variable to refine targets of treatment.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".