Weight loss after gastric bypass reduces the medical risks of obesity but the psychosocial problems remain in many patients due to problems with surplus skin.

Background It remains unclear to what extent the SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the normal progression of biomedical and medical science graduate programs and if there was a lasting impact on the quality and quantity of supervision of PhD-students. To date, multiple editorials and commentaries indicate the severity of the disruption without providing sufficient evidence with quantifiable data. Methods An online survey was submitted to the administrative offices of biomedical and medical PhD-programs at eight major universities in Sweden to gauge the impact of the pandemic on the students. It consisted of multiple-choice and open-ended questions where students could provide examples of positive and/or negative supervision strategies. Open answered questions were coded as either examples of positive or negative support. Results PhD students were divided into two groups: those with improved or unchanged supervision during the pandemic (group 1, n = 185), versus those whose supervision worsened (group 2, n = 69). Group 1 received more help from supervisors and more frequent supervision via both online and alternative platforms (email/messages and telephone). There was no significant difference in educational-stage, gender or caretaking responsibilities between the groups. Conclusions It is important for the scientific community to learn how to provide the best possible supervision for PhD students during the pandemic. Our data suggests that more frequent supervision, and using a diverse array of meeting platforms is helpful. In addition, it is important for the students to feel that they have their supervisor’s emotional support. Several students also expressed that they would benefit from an extension of their PhD programs due to delays caused by the pandemic.

No abstract

The search for biomarkers associated with obesity-related diseases is ongoing, but it is not clear whether plasma and serum can be used interchangeably in this process. Here we used high-throughput screening to analyze 358 proteins and 76 lipids, selected because of their relevance to obesity-associated diseases, in plasma and serum from age- and sex-matched lean and obese humans. Most of the proteins/lipids had similar concentrations in plasma and serum, but a subset showed significant differences. Notably, a key marker of cardiovascular disease PAI-1 showed a difference in concentration between the obese and lean groups only in plasma. Furthermore, some biomarkers showed poor correlations between plasma and serum, including PCSK9, an important regulator of cholesterol homeostasis. Collectively, our results show that the choice of biofluid may impact study outcome when screening for obesity-related biomarkers and we identify several markers where this will be the case.