Associations between Anxiety, Depression, Antidepressant Medication, Obesity and Weight Gain among Canadian Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Some mental illnesses have been suggested to be associated with obesity, although results are somewhat inconsistent and research has focused mainly on depression. METHODS: Associations between anxiety, depression, medications for these illnesses, and obesity were investigated cross-sectionally among women aged 25-74 (n = 3004) who participated as population controls in a cancer case-control study. Participants self-reported information on anxiety, depression, height, current weight and weight at age 25. RESULTS: No association was observed between either anxiety or depression and either current overweight or obesity status. However, depressed women taking antidepressants were more likely to be obese [OR = 1.71 (95%CI = 1.16-2.52) daily antidepressant use; OR = 1.89 (95% CI = 1.21-2.96) ever tricyclic antidepressant use]. In the full study sample consistent positive associations between anxiety, depression and obesity among women with a history of antidepressant use, and generally negative associations among women without, were suggested. Finally, weight gain was associated with history of anxiety [5-19 kg OR = 1.29 (95% CI = 1.06-1.57); ≥ 20 kg OR = 1.43 (95% CI = 1.08-1.88)] and depression [≥ 20 kg OR = 1.28 (95% CI = 0.99-1.65)]. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest depression and anxiety may be associated with weight gain and antidepressant use may be associated with obesity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".