The impact of abdominal body contouring surgery on physical function after a massive weight loss : a pilot non-randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: It is estimated that 70% of individuals who undergo a massive weight loss (MWL) develop excess skin (ES). The ES around the abdominal area has been shown through patient reported outcome measures to negatively impact perceptions of physical function. Yet no studies have examined the impact of abdominal body contouring surgeries on direct measures of physical function. Study Objectives: The primary objective of this pilot study was to determine the variability of outcome measures in the context of ceiling, floor and learning effects to allow measuring the test-retest reliability of the physical performance measures. The secondary objectives of this study were to measure recruitment/retention, participant’s acceptability, and adherence to the protocol. The tertiary objective of this study was to provide data to estimate the effect size and sample size required to design a definitive non-randomized controlled trial. Materials and Methods: Patients who have undergone MWL were recruited through 4 medical clinics and were placed in either body contouring intervention group if they self-selected to undergo surgery or post massive weight loss matched control group. They participated in a series of physical function batteries of tests including 9-item modified physical performance test, 30s-chair to stand, star excursion balance test, timed up and go, modified agility t-test, 6-minute walk test, and body composition measures of fat mass and bone free fat free mass. There was a total of two visits which were 8-12 weeks apart to accommodate for recovery time for abdominal contouring procedures. Conclusion: It was found that tests involving dynamic balance, agility, and walking were reliable and showed medium to large effect size to be considered for future studies. Retention (72%) and recruitment (46%) rates were found to be compromised due to Covid-19 pandemic local limitations, and institutional surgical regulations. Depending on the primary outcomes of future trials, it is estimated that between 12 to 37 participants are required to be included in the sample size to achieve adequate statistical power.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".