Preoperative and post‐operative psychosocial interventions for bariatric surgery patients: A systematic review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychosocial interventions are increasingly being utilized to help patients prepare for, and adjust to changes following, bariatric surgery in order to optimize psychosocial adjustment and weight loss. The current systematic review examined the impact of preoperative and post-operative psychosocial interventions with a behavioural and/or cognitive focus on weight, dietary behaviours, eating pathology, lifestyle behaviours, and psychological functioning. A PsycINFO and Medline search of publications was conducted in March 2019. Two authors assessed retrieved titles and abstracts to determine topic relevance and rated the quality of included studies using a validated checklist. Forty-four articles (representing 36 studies) met the study inclusion criteria. The current evidence is strongest for the impact of psychosocial interventions, particularly cognitive behavioural therapy, on eating behaviours (eg, binge eating and emotional eating) and psychological functioning (eg, quality of life, depression, and anxiety). The evidence for the impact of psychosocial interventions on weight loss, dietary behaviours (eg, dietary intake), and lifestyle behaviours (eg, physical activity) is relatively weak and mixed. Psychosocial interventions can improve eating pathology and psychosocial functioning among bariatric patients, and the optimal time to initiate treatment appears to be early in the post-operative period before significant problematic eating behaviours and weight regain occur.
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.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it