MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2980672645 · doi:10.1159/000502963

Major Depressive Disorder and Food Hypersensitivity: A Case Report

2019· article· en· W2980672645 on OpenAlexaff
Monique Aucoin, Sukriti Bhardwaj

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuropsychobiology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTryptophan and brain disorders
Canadian institutionsCanadian College of Naturopathic Medicine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMajor depressive disorderMoodMedicineIntervention (counseling)Food hypersensitivityPsychiatryDepressive symptomsPsychologyImmunologyCognitionAllergyFood allergy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a common chronic mental health condition and not all patients respond to pharmacotherapy. Increasing evidence suggests that dietary choices play a role in the pathogenesis of mental illness and serve as modifiable factors with utility in the treatment of these disorders. Although many mechanisms are being explored, one area of study is the role of food hypersensitivity reactions in mental health conditions. CASE PRESENTATION: This article reports on a 34-year-old female patient with MDD whose symptoms improved in response to a dietary intervention involving the elimination of common food allergens. Reintroduction of the foods on several occasions was associated with a worsening of mood symptoms. Serum IgG testing reported results consistent with the reintroduction challenge. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Hypothesized mechanisms underlying the potential relationship between food hypersensitivity and MDD are presented. Further research in this area is warranted.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuropsychobiology→Same topicTryptophan and brain disorders→French-language works237,207→