Dietary patterns in relation with psychosomatic complaints profile: Results from SEPAHAN study among a large sample of general adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Although dietary patterns have been evaluated in relation to psychological disorders, their associations with psychosomatic complaints are unclear. We investigated relations of dietary patterns with psychosomatic complaints profiles.Methods: In this cross-sectional study, a total of 3363 adults were included. Dietary intakes and psychosomatic complaints were assessed using self-administered Persian validated questionnaires. Dietary patterns and psychosomatic symptom profiles were identified using exploratory factor analysis.Results: Three dietary patterns and four psychosomatic complaints profiles were identified. Individuals in the top tertile of traditional diet had lower odds for gastrointestinal somatic complaints (odds ratio (OR)= 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.50, 0.91). Individuals in the top tertile of healthy diet had lower odds for psychological (OR= 0.68, 95% CI: 0.51, 0.90), gastrointestinal (OR= 0.65, 95% CI: 0.49, 0.87), neuro-skeletal (OR= 0.66, 95% CI: 0.45, 0.96), and pharyngeal- respiratory somatic complaints (OR= 0.61, 95% CI: 0.47, 0.79). Individuals in the top tertile of Western diet had greater odds for psychological somatic complaints (OR= 1.50, 95% CI: 1.13, 2.00) than those in the first tertile.Discussion: The healthy dietary pattern is inversely related to the risk of psychosomatic complaints, whereas the Western diet might be associated with increased risk of psychosomatic complaints.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".