Consequences of daily self-weighing: a pilot study in higher-weight women with a history of breast cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Self-monitoring weight is commonly recommended for higher-weight women with a history of breast cancer, despite evidence demonstrating potentially negative psychological consequences of frequent self-weighing. The extent to which higher-weight women with breast cancer experience emotional and behavioral consequences in response to daily self-weighing is unknown. In this pilot study, women (n = 51) with a history of breast cancer in a behavioral weight management program completed a weeklong daily diary protocol. Participants were asked to self-weigh every morning and report on subsequent weight-related shame and guilt, and end-of-day engagement in compensatory exercise, diet, and purging behaviors. Women reported higher levels of guilt on days when their body weight was higher than usual, and when there was more discrepancy between their current vs. goal weight. Additionally, women engaged in higher levels of compensatory diet behavior on days when they experienced more weight-related guilt than usual. Based on these preliminary findings, daily self-weighing may be associated with harmful emotional and behavioral consequences among higher-weight women with a history of breast cancer.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".