Quality of Life Measured Using the BODY-Q After Adolescent Gynecomastia Surgery: A Cross-Sectional Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used to seek feedback from patients. Knowledge gaps exist regarding outcomes in adolescents postgynecomastia surgery. This study assesses adolescent patients’ quality of life postgynecomastia surgery using a PROM specific for body contouring procedures, and identifies patient and treatment factors associated with quality of life scores. Methods: Adolescent patients undergoing surgical treatment for Simon grades I, IIa, or IIb gynecomastia from May 2009 to November 2022 at British Columbia Children's Hospital were invited to complete the Body Contouring Questionnaire (BODY-Q) Satisfaction with Chest and Psychological Function scales. Raw scores were Rasch transformed (scale 0-100), averaged, and compared to normative scores. Body mass index (BMI), Simon grade, postoperative complication, and revision procedure information were collected from medical charts and analyzed for associations with BODY-Q scores. Results: Thirty-seven of 76 patients (48.7%) completed the BODY-Q. At the time of survey completion, the median age of participants was 23.3 years, and the median BMI was 26.5. The median time from surgery to survey completion was 7 years. Median scores on the Satisfaction with Chest and Psychological Function scales were 70 and 71, respectively, which were significantly higher than normative scores of unaffected males on the same scales ( P = .0004 and P = .0014, respectively). Undergoing a revision procedure was associated with significantly worse satisfaction with chest appearance ( P = .045). Conclusion: Patients who underwent gynecomastia surgery report better satisfaction with chest appearance and psychological function, as measured by the BODY-Q, compared to unaffected males of similar age and BMI. These results may play an important role in destigmatizing gynecomastia surgery for adolescents.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".