Health change awareness and its association with weight loss following bariatric surgery.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Patients' ability to judge health change over time has important clinical implications for treatment, but is understudied in longitudinal contexts with meaningful health change. We assess patients' awareness of health change for 5 years following bariatric surgery, and its association with weight loss. METHOD: = 2,027). Perceived health change for each year was assessed by comparing it to self-reports of health on the SF-36 health survey. Participants were categorized as concordant when perceived and actual self-reported health change corresponded, and as discordant when they did not correspond. RESULTS: Year-to-year concordance between perceived and actual self-reported health change occurred less than 50% of the time. Discordance between perceived and actual health was associated with weight loss following surgery. Discordant-positive participants who perceived their health change as more positive than was warranted lost more weight post-surgery and thus had lower body mass index scores than concordant participants. Conversely, discordant-negative participants who perceived their health as worse than what was warranted lost less weight post-surgery and thus had higher body mass index scores. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that recollection of past health is generally poor and can be biased by salient factors during recall. Clinicians are advised to use caution when retrospective judgments of health are utilized. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".