MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406964043 · doi:10.1038/s41366-025-01725-5

Who drives weight stigma? A multinational exploration of clustering characteristics behind weight bias against preconception, pregnant, and postpartum women

2025· article· en· W4406964043 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Haimanot Hailu, Angela C. Incollingo Rodriguez, Anthony Rodriguez, Helen Skouteris, Briony Hill

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Obesity · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicObesity and Health Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMonash UniversityWorcester Polytechnic Institute
KeywordsMedicineObstetricsStigma (botany)Multinational corporationPregnancyPsychiatryPolitical scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Weight bias is a global health challenge and community members are endorsed as the most common source of weight bias. The nature of weight biases specifically against preconception, pregnant, and postpartum (PPP) women from the perspective of community members is not known, especially in terms of cross-cultural trends. We investigated the magnitude of explicit and implicit weight bias and profiles of characteristics associated with harbouring weight bias. METHODS: We conducted a multinational investigation of clusters of factors associated with weight bias against PPP women (May-July 2023). Community members from Australia, Canada, United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), Malaysia, and India completed a cross-sectional survey measuring explicit and implicit weight biases, beliefs about weight controllability, and awareness of sociocultural body ideals. Hierarchical multiple regression and latent profile analyses identified clusters of factors associated with weight bias. RESULTS: Participants from India reported the lowest explicit weight bias (B = -0.45, p = 0.02). Participants from Australia (B = -0.14, p = 0.04) and the UK (B = -0.16, p = 0.02) (vs. US) reported the lowest implicit weight bias. Three distinct profiles were identified clustering on body mass index (BMI) and weight-controllability beliefs: low-BMI/moderate-beliefs, high-BMI/more biased beliefs, and high-BMI/less biased beliefs. Profile membership varied by country of residence and weight bias outcomes with low-BMI/moderate-beliefs profiles containing more people from non-Western countries and with low explicit weight bias. CONCLUSIONS: Explicit and implicit weight bias was harboured by participants across all included nations, although less pronounced in non-Western countries. Our profiles highlight that individuals who held a stronger belief that weight is controllable, regardless of their body weight, should be targeted for interventions to eliminate weight stigma.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.342 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of ObesitySame topicObesity and Health PracticesFrench-language works237,207