A prospective evaluation of the depression–nutrient intake reverse causality hypothesis in a cohort of community-dwelling older Canadians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies have investigated the potential protective effects that diet may have on late-life depression incidence. This disorder can, however, affect the person's food intake, widely known as the reverse causality hypothesis of depression. To test this hypothesis, we compared mean nutrient intakes from three 24-h recalls during the year depression was detected (Geriatric Depression Scale ≥11 or antidepressant medication) with intakes from 1 year earlier among community-dwelling older adults (67-83 years) followed up annually in the 4-year Québec Longitudinal Study on Nutrition and Aging, who were free of depression and cognitive impairment at baseline. Participants (n 158, 64·4 % female) who became depressed and had data available for all follow-up years were matched by age group and sex with non-depressed participants. General linear mixed models were adjusted for percentage changes in physical activity, functional autonomy and stressful life events reported at the time of positive screening. A significant group effect for the dietary intake of all three B-vitamins was observed, as depression cases had consistently lower dietary intakes than controls (P<0·01). Over time, intakes of dietary vitamin B12 declined within depressed participants in bivariate analysis, but there was no time×group effect for any nutrient tested in the multivariate analyses. Intakes of energy, protein, saturated fat and total dietary fibre did not change in cases v. CONTROLS: Among community-dwelling older adults, declines in dietary vitamins B6, B12 and folate may precede depression incidence. To help preventative efforts by programmes and practitioners, longitudinal cohorts of longer duration should investigate the extent of the decline in dietary intakes relative to the time of depression.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".