Higher vitamin B<sub>6</sub> intake is associated with lower depression and anxiety risk in women but not in men: A large cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Objective: The prevalence of depression and anxiety is increasing worldwide. Diet as a modifiable factor for mental health has received great attention. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the association of vitamin B6 intake with depression and anxiety. Methods: This cross-sectional study was performed among 3362 adults in 2011. Anxiety and depression were evaluated using an Iranian validated version of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) questionnaire. Dietary intakes were evaluated by a validated 106 item self-administered Willett-format dish-based semi quantitative food-frequency questionnaire (DFQ). Results: The mean intake of vitamin B6 (mg/day) was significantly lower in anxious (1.93 ± 0.74 vs. 2.0 ± 0.74; P = 0.02) and depressed (1.86 ± 0.72 vs. 1.99 ± 0.74; P = 0.001) people than healthy participants. The lower level of vitamin B6 intake (tertile 1), after adjustment for the impacts of various confounding variables, in total population and women was associated with the higher odds of depression (OR = 1.41; 95% CI: 1.19, 2.31; P < 0.001. OR = 1.33; 95% CI: 1.08, 2. 21; P = 0.02, respectively). Also, the lower level of vitamin B6 intake (tertile 1) in total population and women was associated with the higher odds of anxiety (OR = 2.30; 95% CI: 1.31, 4.04; P < 0. 001, OR = 2.30; 95% CI: 1.19, 4.46; P = 0.04). Conclusion: The association of lower intakes vitamin B6 intake with increased risk of depression and anxiety was clearly supported by current study. A reasonable approach to tackle these disorders could be the improvement of nutritional status, accordingly large randomized controlled trials are suggested for providing more evidence.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".