Influence of mental and behavioral factors on weight loss after bariatric surgery: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Multiple factors are related to lower weight loss after bariatric surgery. This review and meta-analysis evaluates the influence of several mental and behavioral factors on weight loss. METHOD: Six electronic databases were searched. Percentage excess weight loss (%EWL) was calculated for all moderator and non-moderator groups of the variables: symptoms of depression, anxiety and binge eating, compliance, physical activity, quality of life, and body image. All moderators, surgery types, and follow-up moments were analyzed separately. RESULTS: In total, 75 articles were included in the review; 12 meta-analyses were conducted. Higher postoperative compliance to follow-up was associated with 6.86%-13.68% higher EWL. Preoperative binge eating was related to more weight loss at 24- and 36-month follow-up (7.97% and 11.79%EWL, respectively). Patients with postoperative binge eating symptoms had an 11.92% lower EWL. Patients with preoperative depressive symptoms lost equal weight compared to patients without symptoms. CONCLUSION: Despite the high heterogeneity between studies, a trend emerges suggesting that the presence of postoperative binge eating symptoms and lower postoperative compliance may be associated with less weight loss after bariatric-metabolic surgery. Additionally, preoperative depressive symptoms and binge eating do not seem to significantly impact weight loss.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".