www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Psychopathological profile before and after bariatric surgery Tura Benítez 1,2*, Assumpta Caixàs 1,3,4*, Pere Rebasa 1,4,5, Alexis Luna 1,4,5, Sara Crivillés 1,2, Teresa Gutiérrez 6 & Joan Deus 6,7 Presurgical psychopathological assessment usually focuses on detecting severe mental disorders. However, mild intensity psychopathology and eating behaviour pattern may also influence postsurgical outcomes. The aim was to identify psychopathology and eating behaviour pattern in candidates prepared for bariatric surgery compared to a normative population before and after surgery. A cohort of 32 patients seeking bariatric surgery in a university hospital between March 2016 and March 2017 were evaluated with Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI), 36‐item EDE‐Q and BES before and after surgery. Thirty-two patients before and 26 one year after surgery were included. The PAI presurgical psychometric profile suggested a mild mixed adjustment disorder focused on somatic complaints. After surgery, patients improved in somatic complaints (p < 0.001), and depression (p = 0.04). Related eating disorders were more common than those of the normative group and improved significantly after surgery in scores for compulsive intake (BES p < 0.001) and overall key behaviours of eating disorders and related cognitive symptoms (EDE-Q/G p < 0.001). In our cohort ready for bariatric surgery a mild psychopathological profile is still present and becomes closer to that of the normative group after surgery. Further studies are needed to evaluate the effects of mild psychopathology on outcomes after bariatric surgery. Bariatric surgery (BS) is an effective treatment for obesity that is being used increasingly worldwide; however, physical changes before or after surgery can induce significant s­ tress1. People with severe obesity awaiting BS may refer psychiatric ­symptomatology2 and poor quality of ­life3. Moreover, personality traits and different degrees of psychopathology may influence outcomes after ­BS1. Nevertheless, research regarding psychopathology and psychological factors for prediction of successful weight loss have been inconsistent so far. In this sense, some ­studies4–7 but not ­all8,9 have reported a negative relationship between presurgical psychopathological symptoms, especially depressive and anxiety disorders with postsurgical weight loss. Also, BS has been shown to ameliorate health-related quality of life and eating disorder symptoms. However, the correlation of these changes with weight loss is not uniform, suggesting that additional factors have an impact on postoperative ­outcomes10. A growing body of evidence indicates that individuals being considered for BS are prone to exhibiting eating disorders and/or problematic eating behaviours, with research further indicat- ing the potential persistence or emergence of these issues following the surgical ­procedure11. The diversity of eating-related behaviours and psychopathology presentations in BS patients have created inconsistencies in the literature in relation to the assessment methodology, diagnosis and ­treatment12. These discrepancies could arise from factors like the duration of the follow-up period and differences in the utilization of assessment tools. Thus, presurgical psychological assessment should include instruments to evaluate psychopathological symptoms thoroughly. In that sense, enhancing comprehension of the psychological attrib- utes exhibited by individuals undergoing BS would hold the potential to empower clinicians in pinpointing and effectively addressing distinct areas of c­ oncern13. Furthermore, such an understanding could potentially elucidate the extent to which motivational stages can serve as predictive indicators for behavioural c­ hanges14. Given that severe and inadequately managed mental health conditions, such as major depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, and eating disorders, could potentially be viewed as contraindications for ­BS15–17, presurgical psychological assessment is usually focused on detecting severe mental disorders. However, mild intensity psychopathology may also influence postsurgical outcomes; therefore, multidimensional instruments capable of detecting mild 1 Institut d’Investigació i Innovació Parc Taulí (I3PT-CERCA), Parc del Taulí, 1, 08208 Sabadell, Barcelona, Spain. 2Mental Health Department, Hospital Universitari Parc Taulí, 08208 Sabadell, Spain. 3Endocrinology and Nutrition Department, Hospital Universitari Parc Taulí, 08208 Sabadell, Spain. 4Department of Medicine, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08208 Sabadell, Spain. 5Department of Surgery, Hospital Universitari Parc Taulí, 08208 Sabadell, Spain. 6Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Spain. 7MRI Research Unit, Department of Radiology, Hospital del Mar, 08003 Barcelona, Spain. *email: mtbenitez@tauli.cat; acaixas@tauli.cat Scientific Reports | (2023) 13:16172 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-43170-2 1 Vol.:(0123456789) www.nature.com/scientificreports/ intensity psychopathology and maladaptive eating behaviours in candidates for BS might enable treatment that might improve postsurgical outcomes. An increasing number of assessment instruments have been validated for use in BS samples. The Personal- ity Assessment Inventory (PAI) appears particularly useful for assessing candidates for ­BS18. Specifically, in this population, significantly high scores on the Positive Impression Management, Somatization, Depression, Dominance, and Warmth scales of the PAI are ­relevant7,18. A recent retrospective study found that psychological factors, as assessed by the PAI, affected long-term maintenance of weight loss after BS; anxiety and mania were associated with greater initial weight loss and faster weight regain after about 3 years, and alcohol problems were associated with worse BMI o ­ utcome19. Moreover, binge eating stands out as the disorder most significantly impacted by BS. According to a compre- hensive review, the prevalence of presurgical binge eating disorder spans from 2 to 49%, while subclinical binge eating behaviours are reported at rates ranging from 6 to 64% across various s­ tudies20. Notably, research indicates that the scores on the Binge Eating Scale (BES) show marked improvement postsurgery. Noteworthy findings also highlight a drastic reduction in the proportion of participants classified under the severe BES category, plummeting from 78% to a mere 5% (p < 0.01)21. Additionally, the severity of problematic eating behaviours, as assessed by the Eating Disorder Examination-Self-Report Questionnaire (EDE‐Q), demonstrates a consistent decline after surgery, maintaining levels lower than baseline throughout the follow-up p ­ eriod22. Given its valid- ity within the Hispanic population, the EDE‐Q can be effectively integrated into preoperative psychological assessment batteries to screen for eating disorder ­psychopathology23. In light of these findings, both the binge eating scale (BES)24 and the Eating Disorder Examination-Self-Report Questionnaire (EDE‐Q)25 have proven to be robust instruments for the evaluation of these complex disorders. In this study, we employed the PAI, EDE-Q, and BES to assess both the psychopathological profile and eating-related behaviours among individuals seeking bariatric surgery (BS), while also investigating potential changes in this profile 1-year post-surgery. The proposed mechanisms underlying the psychopathological shifts following BS are intertwined with the notion that individuals with obesity often contend with an adverse body image, thereby giving rise to responsive anxious-depressive manifestations and maladaptive conduct. BS, yield- ing substantial weight reduction, holds the potential to engender an amelioration in body image perception, subsequently culminating in the alleviation of maladaptive symptoms. Materials and methods Subjects The recruitment of participants was on the basis of adding consecutive patients ready for BS during a period of time from March 2016 to March 2017 in a university hospital. Patients were considered ready after the selec- tion by a multidisciplinary team led by an Endocrinologist and assisted by a Psychologist/Psychiatrist. All were aged ≥ 18 years with moderate-to-severe obesity, body mass index (BMI) ≥ 40 kg/m2 (or BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2, in patients with weight-related comorbidities), at least 6 months of failure to achieve and maintain weight loss in several diet programs, capacity to understand the surgical procedure and its effects, motivation for dietary monitoring (loss of 5% of weight in the 3 months prior to referral to surgery) and informed written consent to participate in the study. Exclusion criteria were: uncontrolled major psychiatric pathology or that prevents post- operative compliance, impaired judgment and/or active toxic habits, severe active eating disorder, unacceptable anesthetic risk, pregnancy or short-term desire, lactation, inflammatory bowel disease and evolutionary diseases of limited vital prognosis (neoplastic or systemic). All procedures involving the participants were performed according to the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki, and the protocol was approved by the local ethics committee (CEIm 2015621). Design In this prospective study, a multidimensional assessment inventory called PAI was employed to comprehensively assess psychopathological s­ ymptomatology26–28, and specific inventories for eating behaviour disorders, namely BES and EDE-Q24,25, were used to evaluate changes before and after BS, in comparison with normative data from the general population. Procedure After endocrinological evaluation and a first appointment with the surgeon, candidates were referred to a psy- chiatrist for routine psychological evaluation comprising (a) a psychosocial interview including questions about personal and educational background, weight and weight loss trajectory, medical history, and adherence to medical recommendations; (b) the Structured Clinical Interview for D ­ SM29; and (c) the Bulimic Investigatory Test, ­Edinburgh30. Patients were considered eligible for the study after this initial routine screening. Thereafter, they signed informed consent and were assessed with the P ­ AI26, ­BES24 and EDE‐Q25. Patients were reassessed with these three instruments before BS and 1 year after surgery. Measures The ­PAI26 is a self-administered test of personality and psychopathology features comprising 22 nonoverlapping full scales: 4 validity scales (infrequency, inconsistency, negative impression management, and positive impres- sion management), 5 complementary validity scales (end questionnaire inconsistency, simulation index, Rog- ers discriminant function, defensiveness index, and Cashel discriminant function), 11 clinical scales (somatic complaints, anxiety, anxiety-related disorders, depression, mania, paranoia, schizophrenia, borderline features, antisocial features, alcohol problems, and drug problems), and 2 interpersonal scales (dominance and warmth). Ten of these scales are divided into 31 conceptually defined subscales. Participants qualify items on a Likert Scientific Reports | (2023) 13:16172 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-43170-2 2 Vol:.(1234567890) www.nature.com/scientificreports/ scale ranging from 1 (totally false, not at all true) to 4 (very true). The PAI also yields five treatment indicators (aggression, suicidal ideation, nonsupport, stress, and treatment rejection). To enable comparison with a census- matched community sample, scores on all PAI scales and subscales were transformed to T-scores. Transformed T-scores have a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10; thus, T-scores > 50 are above the mean value in the community sample, T-score > 60 is considered clinically relevant and T-scores ≥ 70 (two standard deviations above the mean) signify a marked deviation from the typical response in the community sample. Combining the clinical and personality scales and subscales can identify various psychopathological profiles, 15 clinical syndromes and 10 personality d ­ isorders26,27. In addition, eating disorders were evaluated with these two questionnaires to detect mild altered behaviour pattern and attitudes in front of food. Firstly, the 36‐item EDE‐Q25 contains 14 attitudinal questions that assess the severity of eating pathology over the previous 28 days. Participants qualify items on a Likert scale ranging from 0 (none) to 6 (every day), with higher scores reflecting either greater severity or higher frequency of eating pathology. Item 1–15 and 29–36 generate the global score, which is the average score of four subscales: restraint, eating concern, weight concern, and shape concern. It is particularly valuable for assessing behaviour related to anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, binge eating disorder, and other specified feeding and eating disorders. A score ≥ 5 points on the global scale and ≥ 5 on each of the subscales is considered clinically relevant. The ­BES24 is a 16-item instrument widely used as a self-report measure of the severity and frequency of binge eating episodes and related psychological features. Participants respond to each item on a Likert scale, indicating the degree to which each statement applies to them. The scale assesses various aspects related to binge eating behaviour, including: frequency of binge eating, emotional aspects, loss of control, guilt and shame. The BES is useful for screening and diagnosing binge eating disorder, as well as tracking changes in binge eating behaviour over time, such as during treatment. A score of 17 is considered the most appropriate clinical cutoff point based on the sensitivity and specificity values of the test. Data analysis Data from the PAI were prepared as recommended by M ­ orey26,27: cases were excluded when (a) > 5% of questions were unanswered, (b) inconsistency T-scores were > 73, or (c) infrequency T-scores were > 75. To test the normality of variables’ distribution, we used the Shapiro–Wilk test. In direct scores, we sum- marized normally distributed variables as means with standard deviations and non-normally distributed vari- ables as medians and interquartile ranges. To compare with normative group, we used independent t-tests, the Mann–Whitney U, or chi-square tests, as appropriate. To compare pre-surgical and post-surgical parameters, we used paired t-tests, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, or the McNemar test, as appropriate. Significance was set at p < 0.05. We utilized interclass correlation coefficients along with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals to assess the agreement or similarity between the test scores. We used Stata Statistical Software, version 13.1 (StataCorp LP; College Station, TX, USA) for all analyses. Ethical statement All procedures involving the participants were performed according to the principles outlined in the Declara- tion of Helsinki, and the protocol was approved by the local ethics committee. This study protocol was reviewed and approved by the CEIm Committee, which is accredited by The Office For Human Research Protections of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Federalwide Assurance (FWA), FWA00025624, approval number [CEIm 2015621]. Consent to participate Written informed consent was obtained from study participants. All of them signed a standard document to ensure the understanding of the objective and the signing the agreement to participate. Results Participants A total of 42 individuals with moderate-to-severe obesity sought BS at our university hospital during this period of time. Of these, the routine screening excluded 6 for medical or surgical contraindications to BS and 4 for severe, active eating or mental disorders (1 individual met both exclusion criteria). Thus, we analyzed data from 32 individuals: 21 (65.6%) women; mean age, 49.2 ± 6.8 years, range, 32‒59 years). At the presurgical evaluation, 22 (68.8%) were employed. BS consisted of sleeve gastrectomy in 15 (45.5%) patients and gastric bypass in 18 (54.5%). Twenty-six individuals were evaluated after surgery (loss to follow-up 18.75%) Mean BMI after surgery was 29.46 (5.1) kg/m2 after a mean follow-up of 14.1 (3.6) months. Table 1 reports patients’ demographics and clinical history. Comparison of PAI scales with the normative group before BS The PAI was completed by 32 (100%) participants before surgery. None of the questionnaires were invalidated, because no T-scores on the validity scales were outside the acceptance protocol. Mean T-scores on the clinical scales ranged from 43.9 ± 9.7 for mania to 67.1 ± 14.1 for somatic concerns. The overall mean score 51.7 ± 10.5 was virtually identical to that of the standardization sample. The psychometric profile (stress 57 ± 13.2; anxiety 51 ± 11; depression 59.8 ± 13.3; somatic complaints 67 ± 14.1, and obsessive–compulsive disorder 49.7 ± 10.9) suggested that our cohort had mild somatic complaints with mild intensity mixed adjustment disorder. Table 2 shows the clinical scales, with the highest scores for somatic complaints and depression, however, only somatic complaints were high enough to be considered clinically relevant (T > 60). Table 3 shows the subscales’ scores. Scientific Reports | (2023) 13:16172 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-43170-2 3 Vol.:(0123456789) www.nature.com/scientificreports/ Female (n = 21) Male (n = 11) Entire sample (n = 32) Demographics Age in years, mean (sd) 49.2 (6.8) 44 (8.7) 47.5 (7.2) Employed (%) 52.5 16.3 68.8 Presurgical clinical history Height (cm), mean (sd) 157.2 (7.3) 169.9 (11.3) 165.3 (15) Weight (Kg), mean (sd) 118.7 (8.9) 138.2 (13.5) 127.1 (26.4) BMI in kg/m2, mean (sd) 46.1 (6.1) 46.4 (7.8) 46.2 (6.6) Body fat (%), mean (sd) 50.5 (4.3) 40.2 (5.1) 47.1 (4.7) Hypertension, n (%) 14 (43.8) 5 (15.6) 59.4 Diabetes, n (%) 10 (31.3) 3 (9.4) 40.7 Dyslipidemia, n (%) 14 (43.8) 3 (9.4) 53.2 OSA n (%) 16 (50) 6 (18.8) 68.8 Osteoarticular pathology n (%) 1 (3.1) 1 (3.1) 6.2 Degenerative joint disease, n (%) 1 (3.1) 1 (3.1) 6.2 Eating disorder, n (%) 4 (12.5) 1 (3.1) 15.6 Depressive symptoms n (%) 6 (18.8) 1 (3.1) 21.9 Antihypertensive drugs n (%) 11 (34.4) 5 (15.6) 50 Hypolipidemic drugs n (%) 11 (34.4) 3 (9.4) 43.8 Antidiabetic drugs n (%) 9 (28.1) 2 (6.3) 34.4 Psychotropic drugs n (%) 11(34.4) 1 (3.1) 37.5 Table 1.  Participants’ demographics and clinical history. sd standard deviation, BMI body mass index, OSA obstructive sleep apnea. PAI scale Baseline (n = 32) 1 year after surgery (n = 26) P-value Validity scales Inconsistency 48.6 (10.1) 50.8 (12.7) 0.16 Frequency 50.2 (10.6) 50.9 (10.5) 0.24 Negative impression management 54.7 (13) 50.5 (8.4) 0.25 Positive impression management 52 (11.2) 50.7 (10.3) 0.01* Clinical scales Somatic complaints 67.1 (14.1) 59.7 (15.6) < 0.001* Anxiety 50.8 (10.9) 48.7 (10.5) 0.64 Anxiety-related disorders 51.5 (11) 48.7 (9.3) 0.20 Depression 59.8 (13.3) 54.8 (10.5) 0.04* Mania 43.9 (9.7) 44.6 (10.3) 0.18 Paranoia 50.7 (11.5) 48 (7.7) 0.33 Schizophrenia 50.5 (11.4) 47.8 (9.2) 0.53 Borderline features 49.5 (11.5) 47.5 (9.1) 0.96 Antisocial features 46.8 (9) 45.8 (8.1) 0.71 Alcohol problems 45.8 (7) 47.9 (11.7) 0.51 Drug problems 49.7 (9.2) 49.7 (9.6) 0.26 Treatment indicators Aggression 50.9 (9) 49.2 (8.2) 0.61 Suicidal ideation 52.7 (12.9) 49.6 (9.4) 0.59 Stress 57 (13.2) 52.7 (9.3) 0.65 Nonsupport 50.9 (12.1) 50.9 (8.2) 1.00 Treatment rejection 47.3 (11.6) 53.9 (11.3) 0.03* Interpersonal scales Dominance 47.9 (9.4) 50.8 (9.8) 0.06 Warmth 51.8 (10.7) 53.1 (9.5) 0.37 Table 2.  Mean T-scores full-scale scores on the Personality Assessment Inventory before and after bariatric surgery. PAI personality assessment inventory. T score > 60 is considered clinically relevant. *p < 0.05, paired t-test or Wilcoxon test; results expressed as mean (standard deviation). Scientific Reports | (2023) 13:16172 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-43170-2 4 Vol:.(1234567890) www.nature.com/scientificreports/ PAI subscale Baseline (n = 32) 1 year after surgery (n = 26) P-value Somatic complaints Conversion 63.6 (14.8) 58.3 (17.2) 0.01* Somatization 63.3 (11.9) 58.1 (13.7) 0.05* Health concerns 66.9 (13.5) 58.6 (13.3) < 0.001* Anxiety Cognitive 49.6 (11) 48.2 (10.4) 0.83 Affective 49.4 (11.5) 47.3 (8.5) 0.77 Physiological 53 (10.2) 50.8 (13.5) 0.64 Anxiety-related disorders Obsessive–compulsive 49.7 (10.9) 45.7 (9.2) 0.04* Phobias 50.9 (10.1) 50.8 (9) 0.92 Traumatic stress 52.2 (11.3) 48.1 (8.6) 0.08 Depression Cognitive 55.2 (13.1) 52 (9.4) 0.20 Affective 56.2 (14.8) 50.2 (11.8) 0.08 Physiological 62.6 (12.5) 58.8 (10.7) 0.06 Mania Activity level 46.2 (9.3) 50.8 (10) < 0.001* Grandiosity 45.9 (9.6) 44.9 (8.4) 0.75 Irritability 44.8 (9.8) 43 (9.5) 0.49 Paranoia Hypervigilance 47.7 (10.7) 45.5 (7.8) 0.35 Persecution 52.2 (12.3) 50 (6.9) 0.49 Resentment 52.1 (11.6) 49.6 (9.4) 0.56 Schizophrenia Psychotic experiences 49 (7.2) 46.4 (6.9) 0.19 Social detachment 50.1 (12.8) 50.2 (10.9) 0.49 Thought disorder 51.9 (11.7) 48 (9.9) 0.03* Borderline features Affective instability 47.7 (10.2) 47 (7.8) 0.90 Identity problems 50.7 (13.8) 49 (10.5) 0.14 Negative relationships 49.9 (12) 47.8 (9.4) 0.29 Self-harm 49.7 (11.6) 49.3 (10.6) 0.54 Antisocial features Antisocial behaviors 48.3 (7.4) 46.7 (7.6) 0.78 Egocentricity 47.7 (14.7) 45.9 (7.1) 0.27 Stimulus seeking 45.9 (6.8) 47.7 (9.7) 0.30 Aggression Aggressive attitude 54 (8.5) 52.9 (10.1) 0.82 Verbal aggression 48.1 (8.5) 47.9 (8) 0.53 Physical aggression 50 (11.4) 46.8 (6.1) 0.11 Table 3.  Mean T-scores subscale scores on the Personality Assessment Inventory before and after bariatric surgery. PAI personality assessment inventory. T score > 60 is considered clinically relevant. *p < 0.05, paired t-test or Wilcoxon test; results expressed as mean (standard deviation). T-scores > 60 was considered clinically relevant. Among the somatic complaints, health concerns, conversion, and somatization together with the physiological depression subscale exhibited clinically relevant scores. In summary, the presurgical psychometric profile suggested a mild intensity mixed adjustment disorder focused on somatic complaints. No psychopathological personality disorders were found. T-scores for other aspects in the psychometric profile were around 50, corresponding to the mean values in the general population. PAI full‑scale and subscale profiles after BS Twenty-six patients (81.25%) were assessed. At clinical scales, patients improved significantly after surgery on somatic complaints (SOM p < 0.001) and depression (DEP p = 0.04). At treatment-related scales, treatment rejec- tion was also significantly increased (RTR p = 0.03) (Table 2). In relation to subscales, after surgery, patients improved significantly in all somatic complaint areas (SOM-C p = 0.01; SOM-S p = 0.05; SOM-H p < 0.001), especially in concern for health (SOM-H: health concerns). Scientific Reports | (2023) 13:16172 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-43170-2 5 Vol.:(0123456789) www.nature.com/scientificreports/ Regarding anxiety-related disorders, the obsessive–compulsive symptoms decreased (TRA-O p = 0.04) and regarding psychotic disorders, cognitive distortions also decreased (ESQ-A p = 0.03) (Table 3). Eating behaviour before and after BS Before surgery, the absence of eating behaviour disorders is noted in our cohort. In BES n = 32 (100%) the mean score was 5.29 ± 4.12 and in EDE-Q/G n = 32 (100%) the global men score was 2.44 ± 0.88. Restrictive eating behaviour and cognitive symptoms of concern for weight and body shape improved significantly after surgery, becoming in line with the values of the general population. After surgery N = 26 (81.25%), significant improve- ments were observed in scores for compulsive intake (BES p < 0.001), restrictive behaviour (EDE-Q/R p < 0.001), concern for weight (EDE-Q/W p < 0.001), shape concern (EDE-Q/S p < 0.001), and overall key behaviours of eating disorders and related cognitive symptoms (EDE-Q/G p < 0.001). After surgery, patients reported lower occurrence and frequency of key behavioural traits in eating disorders, including compulsive eating, misuse of laxatives and diuretics, and concern for weight and body shape. However, concern for food did not change significantly (EDE-Q/E p = 0.73) (Table 4). Discussion BS can be an effective treatment for obesity, although the presence of psychopathology, even of mild intensity or subclinical, eating-related behaviours and certain personality traits may affect postsurgical o ­ utcomes19. To our knowledge, this is the first study to prospectively assess patients with the PAI before and after BS. Our findings using the multidimensional PAI add strength and depth to those reported in previous studies using unidimen- sional psychological tests that reported a higher prevalence of mental health disorders (especially symptoms of depression or anxiety) in people with obesity as well as improvements after ­BS31–36. In the present study by PAI, mild somatic complaints, especially health concerns, depressive and anxiety symptoms and compulsive personality traits were more common in participants than in the general population. We found that patients’ presurgical profile was compatible with a mild intensity mixed (anxious-depressive) adjustment disorder. In this sense, the only scale with mean clinically relevant scores (T > 60) was somatic complaints, particularly health concerns, characterized by excessive concern about having a serious illness or the likelihood of becoming ill despite a lack of medical evidence for illness. This dimension is closely related to depression and stress, which also involve feelings of worry and anxiety, while generating frustration and help- lessness. A comparable psychopathological clinical profile has been previously documented utilizing alterna- tive instruments to the PAI in 15% of obese patients awaiting BS or in hyperphagic obesity up to 30%22. In the same direction as the PAI, the baseline EDE-Q identified symptoms of cognitive anxiety about weight and body shape that were closely related to a somatic complaint, and these symptoms significantly improved 1 year after surgery. Moreover, while the PAI did not diagnose any personality disorders among our patients, it did illumi- nate certain associated personality traits. These traits were typified by a compulsive and obsessive behavioural pattern, alongside the presence of distorted or maladaptive thoughts concerning their cognitive perceptions of health status. According to the results of the PAI, after surgery, the profile improved by a noteworthy decrease in somatic complaints and anxious-depressive symptoms, enhanced adherence to therapeutic measures, reduced compulsive behaviour, and diminished cognitive distortion. Additionally, there was a substantial increase in patients’ activity. This profile was more linear and closer to that of the general population, although somatic complaints and affective disturbances remained more common in our cohort than in the general population. Eating disorders were less prevalent and exhibited milder severity within our cohort compared to findings from other studies, as indicated by lower presurgical scores on the EDE-Q global s­ cale4,10,22. This difference can likely be attributed to our standard presurgical evaluation process, which systematically identifies and excludes severe eating disorders that could potentially compromise surgical ­outcomes37–39. We found no symptoms of compulsive intake or diagnostic criteria for binge eating disorder in BES, although restrictive eating behaviours and cognitive symptoms of concern for weight and body shape were common. Compulsive and obsessive behav- iour and eating disturbances both entail easy frustration at having to wait for rewards; action in individuals with these traits is often geared toward achieving immediate ­satisfaction40 and avoiding situations that do not provide immediate reinforcement or that require perseverance to achieve rewards. Following BS, notable enhancements were observed in various facets of psychopathology, particularly in somatic complaints, the anxious-depressive syndrome, and cognitive distortions. Additionally, there was a Baseline (n = 32) mean (sd) 1 year after surgery (n = 26) mean (sd) P-value Binge eating scale 5.29 (4.12) 2.5 (2.47) < 0.001* EDE-Q/R: restraint 3.24 (1.10) 1.91 (1.21) < 0.001* EDE-Q/E: eating concern 0.52 (0.74) 0.49 (0.57) 0.73 EDE-Q/W: weight concern 2.73 (1.30) 1.26 (1.13) < 0.001* EDE-Q/S: shape concern 2.96 (1.56) 1.67 (1.48) < 0.001* EDE-Q/G: global score 2.44 (0.88) 1.34 (0.80) < 0.001* Table 4.  Eating behaviour data. sd standard deviation, EDE-Q eating disorder examination self-report questionnaire. BES: a score of 17 is deemed the optimal clinical cutoff based on test sensitivity and specificity, EDE-Q a score of ≥ 5 on the global scale and each subscale is considered clinically relevant. *p < 0.05, paired t-test or Wilcoxon test; results expressed as mean (standard deviation). Scientific Reports | (2023) 13:16172 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-43170-2 6 Vol:.(1234567890) www.nature.com/scientificreports/ marked amelioration in restrictive eating behaviours and disturbances related to body image subsequent to BS. A previous study already reported an improvement in the BES score after surgery and a decline of the percentage of patients in the severe category from 78 to 5% (p < 0.01)21. Similarly, in our cohort, mean BES score was reduced in 2.79 points after surgery, although the score was in the category of not clinically relevant across the duration of the study. According with ­others22 the severity of problematic eating behaviours measured by EDE‐Q decreased up to 54.9% after surgery and remained lower than baseline throughout follow-up. Importantly, a majority of these symptoms (including compulsive eating, misuse of laxatives and diuretics, concern for weight and body shape) also exhibited improvement post-surgery, with patients’ post-surgical scores aligning closely with those observed in the general population. These findings underscore the potential for BS to effectively mitigate mild eating disorders, as well as alleviate mild psychopathological symptoms and maladaptive thought patterns. Other ­findings41 support the notion that a significant portion of the improvements in mental health can be attributed to the weight loss itself, resulting in positive changes in body image, self-esteem, and self-concept. Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge that other factors also contribute to postoperative mental well-being, including the patient’s perception of regained control over their life and the support received from healthcare professionals. Therefore, substantial weight loss together with the perception of the own personal progress and recovering the command over one’s life has the potential to foster an enhanced perception of body image, subse- quently leading to a reduction in maladaptive symptoms, particularly in cases of mild mixed adjustment disorder. Numerous studies have examined psychopathology, personality traits, and eating disorders within the bari- atric population; however, few have delved into the intricate interconnections among these psychological, per- sonality, and eating aspects among individuals with obesity who are pursuing ­BS42. The utilization of the PAI offers a comprehensive tool to illuminate both psychopathological tendencies and personality disorders, thereby pinpointing the pivotal psychological attributes that define these individuals. Furthermore, it aids in evaluating these attributes as potential predictors of surgical outcomes. Consequently, these psychological and personality variables warrant consideration for inclusion in psychotherapeutic interventions aimed at mitigating psycho- logical distress and maladaptive eating behaviours. These findings underscore the significance of incorporating personality and psychological variables into the pre-surgery assessment process, as well as the potential utility of targeting them for psychotherapeutic interventions either prior to or following the surgical procedure. Several limitations inherent to our study warrant consideration. Primarily, the modest sample size has likely curtailed the statistical robustness of our analyses, potentially compromising the sensitivity of certain investi- gations. Furthermore, the limited sample size impeded the execution of a comprehensive prognostic analysis and the incorporation of adjustments for bias and confounding variables. It is noteworthy, however, that a mere 18.75% of patients were lost to follow-up, a retention rate that proves favorable when contrasted with analogous obesity-focused investigations. Secondly, this longitudinal exploratory inquiry abstained from contrasting sub- jects with a control group (only with normative data), constituting a prospective analysis restricted to a solitary year of follow-up and bereft of supplementary data. As a result, any predictions drawn from the study’s findings must be approached with caution. It is essential for future investigations to encompass control groups and larger cohorts observed over an extended period of follow-up. In conclusion, in our cohort, candidates for BS have somatic complaints (especially concern for their health), mild affective disorder (depression) and stress, restrictive eating behaviours, and cognitive symptoms of concern for weight and body shape, but they do not have a formal eating or personality disorder. Most of these symptoms improve after BS. Further studies are needed to evaluate whether improvements in mild intensity psychopathol- ogy benefits outcomes after BS. Data availability All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this article. Further enquiries can be directed to the corresponding author. Received: 6 July 2023; Accepted: 20 September 2023 References 1. Oltmanns, J. R., Rivera Rivera, J., Cole, J., Merchant, A. & Steiner, J. P. Personality psychopathology: Longitudinal prediction of change in body mass index and weight post-bariatric surgery. Health Psychol. 39(3), 245–254 (2020). 2. Sarwer, D. B. et al. Psychiatric diagnoses and psychiatric treatment among bariatric surgery candidates. Obes Surg. 14(9), 1148–1156 (2004). 3. Caixàs, A. et al. Group for the study of obesity of the Spanish Endocrinology and nutrition society (SEEN), Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL. Weight-related quality of life in Spanish obese subjects suitable for bariatric surgery is lower than in their North American counterparts: a case-control study. Obes Surg. 23(4), 509–514 (2013). 4. Peterhänsel, C., Linde, K., Wagner, B., Dietrich, A. & Kersting, A. Subtypes of personality and ‘locus of control’ in bariatric patients and their effect on weight loss, eating disorder and depressive symptoms, and quality of life. Eur. Eat. Disord. Rev. 25(5), 397–405 (2017). 5. García-Ruiz-de-Gordejuela, A. et al. Weight loss trajectories in bariatric surgery patients and psychopathological correlates. Eur. Eat. Disord. Rev. 25(6), 586–594 (2017). 6. de Zwaan, M. et al. Anxiety and depression in bariatric surgery patients: a prospective, follow-up study using structured clinical interviews. J. Affect. Disord. 133(1–2), 61–68 (2011). 7. Walter, F. A., Hoyt, T., Martinez, H. & Dziura, J. Preoperative psychological assessment and weight loss outcomes in bariatric surgery patients at a military treatment facility: A retrospective profile analysis. Mil Med. 187(9–10), e1169–e1175. https://​doi.​ org/​10.​1093/​milmed/​usab0​78 (2022). 8. Livhits, M. et al. Preoperative predictors of weight loss following bariatric surgery: systematic review. Obes Surg. 22(1), 70–89 (2012). Scientific Reports | (2023) 13:16172 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-43170-2 7 Vol.:(0123456789) www.nature.com/scientificreports/ 9. Courcoulas, A. P. et al. Preoperative factors and 3-year weight change in the Longitudinal Assessment of Bariatric Surgery (LABS) consortium. Surg. Obes. Relat. Dis. 11(5), 1109–18. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​soard.​2015.​01.​011 (2015). 10. Gero, D. et al. Predictors of a healthy eating disorder examination-questionnaire (EDE-Q) score 1 year after bariatric surgery. Obes. Surg. 29(3), 928–934 (2019). 11. Gordon, E. L. et al. Overvaluation of shape and weight (Not BMI) associated with depressive symptoms and binge eating symptoms Pre- and Post-bariatric surgery. Obes. Surg. 32(7), 2272–2279. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11695-​022-​06062-4 (2022). 12. Conceição, E. M., Utzinger, L. M. & Pisetsky, E. M. Eating disorders and problematic eating behaviours before and after bariatric surgery: Characterization, assessment and association with treatment outcomes. Eur. Eat. Disord. Rev. 23(6), 417–25. https://​doi.​ org/​10.​1002/​erv.​2397 (2015). 13. Hood, M. M., Corsica, J. A. & Azarbad, L. Do patients seeking laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding surgery differ from those seeking gastric bypass surgery? A comparison of psychological profiles across ethnic groups. Obes. Surg. 21(4), 440–447 (2011). 14. Lecube, A. et al. Obesity group of the spanish society of endocrinology and nutrition (GOSEEN). Assessing motivational stages and processes of change for weight management around bariatric surgery: A multicenter study. Obes. Surg. 29(10), 3348–3356 (2019). 15. Pull, C. B. Current psychological assessment practices in obesity surgery programs: What to assess and why. Curr. Opin. Psychiatry 23(1), 30–36 (2010). 16. Neovius, M. et al. Risk of suicide and non-fatal self-harm after bariatric surgery: Results from two matched cohort studies. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 6(3), 197–207 (2018). 17. Mitchell, J. E. & de Zwaan, M. Psychosocial assessment and treatment of bariatric surgery patients 61–89 (Routledge, 2011). 18. Corsica, J. A., Azarbad, L., McGill, K., Wool, L. & Hood, M. The personality assessment inventory: Clinical utility, psychometric properties, and normative data for bariatric surgery candidates. Obes. Surg. 20(6), 722–731 (2010). 19. Hoyt, T. & Walter, F. A. The relationship of presurgical personality assessment Inventory scales to BMI following bariatric surgery. Health Psychol. 41(3), 184–192 (2022). 20. Niego, S. H., Kofman, M. D., Weiss, J. J. & Geliebter, A. Binge eating in the bariatric surgery population: A review of the literature. Int. J. Eat. Disord. 40(4), 349–359. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​eat.​20376 (2007). 21. Jabbour, G. & Salman, A. Bariatric surgery in adults with obesity: the impact on performance, metabolism, and health indices. Obes. Surg. 31(4), 1767–1789. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11695-​020-​05182-z (2021). 22. Nasirzadeh, Y. et al. Binge eating, loss of control over eating, emotional eating, and night eating after bariatric surgery: results from the Toronto Bari-PSYCH Cohort Study. Obes Surg. 28(7), 2032–2039. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11695-​018-​3137-8 (2018). 23. Marek, R. J. et al. Factor structure and measurement invariance of the English-versus Spanish-language eating disorder examination questionnaire: brief form (S-EDE-Q-BF) in Hispanic/Latino/a/x persons seeking bariatric surgery. Surg. Obes. Relat. Dis. 19(6), 576–584. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​soard.​2022.​12.​015 (2023). 24. Zuñiga, O., Robles, I., Ramírez, A. & Páez, F. Evaluación del trastorno por atracón en población mexicana: traducción y propiedades psicométricas de la versión en español del cuestionario de trastorno por atracón. Psiquiatría 22, 30–36 (2006). 25. Peláez-Fernández, M. A., Labrador, F. J. & Raich, R. M. Validation of eating disorder examination questionnaire (EDE-Q)—Spanish Version for screening eating disorders. Span. J. Psychol. 15(2), 817–824 (2012). 26. Ortiz-Tallo, M., Cardenal, V., Ferragut, M. & Santamaría, P. Spanish and chilean standardizations of the personality assessment inventory: the influence of sex. Span J. Psychol. 14(18), E48. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1017/​sjp.​2015.​57 (2015). 27. Ortiz-Tallo, M., Cardenal, V. & Sánchez, M. P. Guía de interpretación y evaluación de casos clínicos con el Inventario de Evaluación de la Personalidad (PAI) (TEA Editions, 2012). 28. Burneo-Garcés, C., Fernández-Alcántara, M., Aguayo-Estremera, R. & Pérez-García, M. Psychometric properties of the spanish adaptation of the personality assessment inventory in correctional settings: An ESEM study. J. Pers. Assess. 102(1), 75–87 (2020). 29. First, M. B., Spitzer, R. L., Gibbon, M. & Williams, J. B. W. Structured clinical interview for DSM-IV-TR Axis I disorders (SCID-I) (New York State Psychiatric, Institute Biometrics Department, 2002). 30. Vaz Leal, F. J. & Peñas Lledó, E. M. Estudio diferencial de las formas completas y subclínicas de bulimia nerviosa [Differential study of the complete and subclinical presentations of bulimia nervosa]. Actas. Esp. Psiquiatr. 27(6), 359–65 (1999). 31. Kalarchian, M. A. et al. Mental disorders and weight change in a prospective study of bariatric surgery patients: 7 years of follow- up. Surg. Obes. Relat. Dis. 15(5), 739–748 (2019). 32. Duarte-Guerra, L. S., Coêlho, B. M., Santo, M. A. & Wang, Y. P. Psychiatric disorders among obese patients seeking bariatric surgery: Results of structured clinical interviews. Obes. Surg. 25(5), 830–837 (2015). 33. Kinzl, J. F. et al. Psychosocial predictors of weight loss after bariatric surgery. Obes. Surg. 16(12), 1609–1614 (2006). 34. van Hout, G. & van Heck, G. Bariatric psychology, psychological aspects of weight loss surgery. Obes. Facts. 2(1), 10–15 (2009). 35. Lin, H. Y. et al. Psychiatric disorders of patients seeking obesity treatment. BMC Psychiatry 2(13), 1 (2013). 36. León, R. T., Zumaeta, V. A. & Ruiz, P. S. The complex relationship between mental health and weight loss surgery. A review. Rev. Chil. Cir. 69(2), 174–180 (2017). 37. Smith, C. E., Hawkins, M. A. W., Williams-Kerver, G. A. & Duncan, J. Depression subtypes, binge eating, and weight loss in bariatric surgery candidates. Surg. Obes. Relat. Dis. 16(5), 690–697 (2020). 38. Smith, K. E. et al. Loss of control eating and binge eating in the 7 years following bariatric surgery. Obes. Surg. 29(6), 1773–1780 (2019). 39. Sarwer, D. B. et al. Psychopathology, disordered eating, and impulsivity as predictors of outcomes of bariatric surgery. Surg. Obes. Relat. Dis. 15(4), 650–655 (2019). 40. Pujol, J. et al. Dysfunctional brain reward system in child obesity. Cereb Cortex. 31(9), 4376–4385 (2021). 41. Kubik, J. F., Gill, R. S., Laffin, M. & Karmali, S. The impact of bariatric surgery on psychological health. J. Obes. 2013, 837989. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1155/​2013/​837989 (2013). 42. Monteleone, A. M. et al. A network analysis of psychological, personality and eating characteristics of people seeking bariatric surgery: Identification of key variables and their prognostic value. J. Psychosom. Res. 120, 81–89. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jpsyc​ hores.​2019.​03.​010 (2019). Acknowledgements We thank the agency of University and Research Funding Management of the Catalonia Government for their participation in the context of Research Group SGR2022_00717 for Joan Deus. We are indebted to the CERCA Programme of the Generalitat de Catalunya. The project was funded by a grant from Menarini España to Assumpta Caixàs. Author contributions T.B. and A.C. contributed equally to this study. Scientific Reports | (2023) 13:16172 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-43170-2 8 Vol:.(1234567890) www.nature.com/scientificreports/ Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Additional information Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to T.B. or A.C. Reprints and permissions information is available at www.nature.com/reprints. Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/. © The Author(s) 2023 Scientific Reports | (2023) 13:16172 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-43170-2 9 Vol.:(0123456789)