MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398187949 · doi:10.5114/hpc.2024.139518

STIGMATIZATION AND DISCRIMINATION OF OBESE PATIENTS BY HEALTHCAREWORKERS: A GLOBAL HEALTHCARE ISSUE

2024· article· en· W4398187949 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Martyna Szymańska, Mateusz Kapusta, Justyna Nowak

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Problems of Civilization · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicObesity and Health Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Obesity is a chronic, metabolic disease that stems from an imbalanced calorie intake and can be influenced by genetic, environmental and individual factors. Obesity and its complications are among the major global health issues of the 21st century. Many studies have confirmed that obese individuals evoke negative emotions in others, such as disgust, repulsion or even anger. Search was performed on two databases: PubMed and Google Scholar. The following keywords were used: “obesity”, “obese”, “patient”, “stigma”, “weight bias”, “healthcare”, “healthcare professionals”, “medical professionals”, “discrimination”, “fatphobia”. The majority of the articles come from 2013-2023, and no language restriction was applied. Medical personnel often display negative attitudes toward obese patients, which negatively affects the patient’s health and the quality of received care. Currently available literature suggests the occurrence of obesity and weight stigma in many countries around the globe, such as: Poland, Germany, Brazil, USA, Canada, Mexico, Singapore, Israel, and Australia. Both medical personnel and medical students display examples of stigma behaviors. Despite the prevalence of obesity, people with excessive body weight often face social disapproval and discrimination. This stigmatizing behavior can also occur among medical personnel. There is a need to eliminate these negative attitudes and beliefs within the medical community.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes
Systematic reviewhigh
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.392 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Problems of CivilizationSame topicObesity and Health PracticesFrench-language works237,207