Dietary acid load in relation to depression and anxiety in adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background No previous study has examined the association of dietary acid load (DAL) with depression and anxiety in adults. The present study aimed to investigate the association between DAL and the risk of depression and anxiety in Iranian adults. Methods In total, 4378 non‐academic healthy personnel (1909 men and 2469 women) were included in this cross‐sectional study. A validated detailed food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) was used to assess dietary intakes of participants. DAL was estimated using the protein to potassium ratio (Pro:K). Depression and anxiety were screened using an Iranian validated Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale questionnaire. Results Participants with the highest DAL had a higher risk of depression compared to those in the lowest category [odds ratio (OR) = 1.57; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.27–1.95, Ptrend < 0.001), which remained unchanged after controlling for probable confounders, such that those in the top category of DAL had a 100% higher risk of having depression than those in the bottom category (OR = 2.00; 95% CI = 1.52–2.64). In addition, a significant positive association was seen between DAL and anxiety in a crude model (OR = 1.35; 95% CI = 1.02–1.78, Ptrend = 0.01) and even after adjustment for a wide range of confounders, such that participants in the top category of DAL had a 92% greater risk of anxiety than those in the bottom category (OR = 1.92; 95% CI = 1.35–2.74, Ptrend < 0.001). Conclusions In the present study, we found a significant direct association between DAL and the risk of depression, as well as anxiety. Further studies, in particular prospective cohorts are required to confirm these findings.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".