Food intake and blood cholesterol levels of community-based adults with mood disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A growing body of literature links nutrition to mood, especially in epidemiological surveys, but there is little information characterizing food intake in people with diagnosed mood disorders. METHODS: Food intake obtained from 3-day food records was evaluated in 97 adults with mood disorders, whose diagnoses were confirmed in structured interviews. Information from a population nutrition survey, national guidelines for nutritional intakes (Eating Well with Canada's Food Guide) and North American dietary guidelines (Dietary Reference Intakes) was utilized to evaluate the quality of their food intake. RESULTS: Compared to the regional nutrition survey data and national guidelines, a greater proportion of study participants consumed fewer of the recommended servings of grains (p < 0.001) and vegetables and fruits (p < 0.05), and less than the lower boundary of the Adequate Macronutrient Distribution Range (AMDR) for α-linolenic acid (p < 0.001). The study sample also had greater intakes of high-fat whole grain products (p < 0.01), processed meats (p < 0.00001), and higher sugar, fat or salty foods (p < 0.00001). Of the 1746 total meals and snacks consumed, 39% were from sources outside the home, suggesting a lack of time devoted to meal preparation. Finally, a subsample of 48 participants agreed to have blood tests: 44% had mild hypercholesterolemia (> 5.2 and ≤ 6.2 mmol/L) and 21% had hypercholesterolemia (> 6.2 mmol/L). CONCLUSIONS: Much research has proposed multiple ways in which healthier diets may exert protective effects on mental health. The results of this study suggest that adults with mood disorders could benefit from nutritional interventions to improve diet quality.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".