Systematic review of the association between dietary patterns and perinatal anxiety and depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Specific dietary factors contribute to greater risks of prenatal and postpartum anxiety and depression. This study aimed to systematically review and assess the evidence regarding the association between dietary patterns and perinatal anxiety and depression (PAAD). METHODS: A systematic search of the Latin American & Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), PubMed, and Scopus databases for cross-sectional and cohort studies through April 2019 was conducted. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was used to assess the quality of evidence. RESULTS: Ten studies (six cohort and four cross-sectional) were included. All studies had good methodological quality. In these studies, the Western (n = 10), healthy (n = 9), and traditional (n = 7) dietary patterns were examined. The healthy pattern was inversely associated with prenatal and postpartum anxiety and prenatal depression. The traditional Japanese dietary pattern, the traditional Indian-confinement dietary pattern, the United Kingdom traditional dietary and the traditional Brazilian dietary pattern were associated with a lower risk of prenatal depression, postpartum depression, prenatal anxiety and postpartum anxiety, respectively. There was no significant association between a Western dietary pattern and PAAD. The GRADE assessment suggested that the quality of the evidence was very low to low across all outcomes owing to the design, risk of bias, and small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: There is no definitive evidence about the relationship between Western dietary patterns and perinatal anxiety and depression. However, it found an inverse association among the healthy dietary pattern and PAAD. Future studies will be required to better evaluate associations between meal patterns and PAAD. Such studies may provide new insights and assist in the development of new prevention and treatment strategies.
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 | 0.009 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".