General population normative scores for interpreting the <scp>BODY‐Q</scp>
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
Summary The BODY‐Q is a patient‐reported outcome measure used to assess outcomes in patients undergoing weight loss and/or body contouring surgery (BC) following massive weight loss. Normative values for the BODY‐Q are needed to improve data interpretation and enable comparison. Thus, the aim of this study was to determine normative values for the BODY‐Q. Participants were recruited internationally through two crowdsourcing platforms. The participants were invited to complete the BODY‐Q scales through an URL link provided within the crowdsourcing platforms. General linear analyses were performed to compare normative means between countries and continents adjusted for relevant covariates. Normative reference values were stratified by age, body mass index (BMI), and gender. The BODY‐Q was completed by 4051 (2052 North American and 1999 European) participants. The mean age was 36 years (±14.7 SD) and ranged from 17 to 76 years, the mean BMI was 26.4 (±6.7 SD) kg/m 2 , and the sample consisted of 1996 (49.3%) females and 2023 (49.9%) males. Younger age and higher BMI were negatively associated with all BODY‐Q scales ( p < .001). This study provides normative values for the BODY‐Q scales to aid in the interpretation of BODY‐Q scores in research and clinical practise. These values enable us to understand the impact of weight loss and BC on patients' lives.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it