Depression, anthropometric parameters, and body image in adults: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between depression, anthropometric parameters and body image in adults through a systematic review of the literature. METHOD: Medline, Lilacs and PsycInfo databases were searched by two independent reviewers up to August 2018, without language restriction, including cross-sectional, case-control, and cohort studies in adults (18-65 years), of both genders. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale instrument. The PRISMA standards were adopted for the conduct of this review, whose protocol is registered in PROSPERO, number CRD42018105248. RESULTS: The search resulted in 1,770 articles; however, a total of 5 articles were included in this review, whose designs were transversal. Quality scores ranged from 8 to 9 points. The association between depression, anthropometric parameters, and body image was found in all included studies, regardless of the different statistical methods employed. Women perceived their body larger than it really was by idealizing a lean body, whereas in men the perception of being underweight or dissatisfaction was observed by idealizing a larger body, both conditions were associated with the presence of depression or depressive symptoms and body mass index in the same time. CONCLUSION: Depression, anthropometric parameters and body image were associated. It is necessary to conduct other studies, especially longitudinal studies to elucidate the relationship among depression, weight, body image, and other associated factors.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".