Diabetes increases the risk of depression: A systematic review, meta-analysis and estimates of population attributable fractions based on prospective studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We aim to examine the relationship between diabetes and depression risk in longitudinal cohort studies and by how much the incidence of depression in a population would be reduced if diabetes was reduced. Medline/PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for English-language published literature from January 1990 to December 2017. Longitudinal studies with criteria for depression and self-report doctors' diagnoses or diagnostic blood test measurement of diabetes were assessed. Systematic review with meta-analysis synthesized the results. Study quality, heterogeneity, and publication bias were examined. Pooled odds ratios were calculated using random effects models. Population attributable fractions (PAFs) were used to estimate potential preventive impact. Twenty high-quality articles met inclusion criteria and were analyzed. The pooled odds ratio (OR) between diabetes and depression was 1.33 (95% CI, 1.18-1.51). For the various study types the ORs were as follows: prospective studies (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.14-1.57); retrospective studies (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.05-1.62); self-reported diagnosis of diabetes (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.17-1.60); and diagnostic diabetes blood test (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.04-1.52). PAFs suggest that over 9.5 million of global depression cases are potentially attributable to diabetes. A 10-25% reduction in diabetes could potentially prevent 930,000 to 2.34 million depression cases worldwide. Our systematic review provides fairly robust evidence to support the hypothesis that diabetes is an independent risk factor for depression while also acknowledging the impact of risk factor reduction, study design and diagnostic measurement of exposure which may inform preventive interventions.
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 | 0.033 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.046 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".