MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100391099 · doi:10.3389/fnins.2013.00177

Metabolic disturbances connecting obesity and depression

2013· review· en· W2100391099 on OpenAlexaff
Cécile Hryhorczuk, Sandeep Sharma, Stephanie Fulton

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neuroscience · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicStress Responses and Cortisol
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObesityDepression (economics)Adipose tissueMoodAnxietyEndocrinologyAbdominal obesityMedicineInternal medicineMood disordersDiseasePsychologyBioinformaticsPsychiatryMetabolic syndromeBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Obesity markedly increases the odds of developing depression. Depressed mood not only impairs motivation, quality of life and overall functioning but also increases the risks of obesity complications. Abdominal obesity is a better predictor of depression and anxiety risk than overall adipose mass. A growing amount of research suggests that metabolic abnormalities stemming from central obesity that lead to metabolic disease may also be responsible for the increased incidence of depression in obesity. As reviewed here, a higher mass of dysfunctional adipose tissue is associated with several metabolic disturbances that are either directly or indirectly implicated in the control of emotions and mood. To better comprehend the development of depression in obesity, this review pulls together select findings addressing the link between adiposity, diet and negative emotional states and discusses the evidence that alterations in glucocorticoids, adipose-derived hormones, insulin and inflammatory signaling that are characteristic of central obesity may be involved.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations316
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeuroscienceSame topicStress Responses and CortisolFrench-language works237,207