Exploring the association between childhood and adolescent obesity and depression: a meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the association between childhood and adolescent obesity and depression. We systematically searched PubMed, PsycInfo, EMBASE and Science Direct for studies that compared prevalence of depression and depressive symptoms in normal weight and obese children and adolescents. Observational studies were included if they reported body mass index and assessed depression by validated instruments or diagnostic interviews. Quality assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. We used the random-effect model to calculate the pooled odds ratios, standard mean differences (SMDs) and subgroup analysis. Findings for a total of 51,272 participants were pooled across 18 studies and examined. Our analyses demonstrated a positive association between childhood and adolescent obesity and depression (pooled odds ratio = 1.34, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.1-1.64, p = 0.005) and more severe depressive symptoms (SMD = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.025-0.44, p = 0.028) in the obese groups. Overweight subjects were not more likely to have either depression (pooled odds ratio = 1.16, 95% CI: 0.93-1.44, p = 0.19) or depressive symptoms (SMD = 0, 95% CI: -0.101 to 0.102, p = 0.997). Non-Western and female obese subjects were significantly more likely to have depression and severe depressive symptoms (p < 0.05). In conclusion, obese children and adolescents are more likely to suffer from depression and depressive symptoms, with women and non-Western people at higher risk.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.050 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".