Assessment of electronic patient education materials for adolescent bariatric surgery candidates: An environment scan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Adolescents who opt for metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) will use the internet to learn about the procedure. The objective of this study is to assess the suitability of electronic patient education materials (ePEM) of North American centers that perform adolescent bariatric surgery. Methods: Canadian and American bariatric centers that perform adolescent MBS were identified from the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program and Google web-based searches. Suitability of ePEM for the adolescent readership was evaluated using the Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM). Results: Sixty-five centers were evaluated from June to July 2020 with 41% citing adolescent specific material. Six percent of the ePEM were evaluated as 'not suitable', 69% were evaluated as 'adequate', and 25% were evaluated as 'superior'. Conclusion: Adequate ePEM scoring was obtained, but centers had little resources tailored to adolescent patients. Further research is needed to evaluate all the resources provided to adolescents (i.e., resources provided by the health team) to ensure the tools are appropriate for the adolescent readership. Innovation: This environmental scan provided insights to ePEM available for adolescents considering MBS.
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 | 0.006 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".