Association between anaemia and adult depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several observational studies have been conducted to investigate the link between anaemia and adult depression but have shown inconsistent results. This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to investigate this association. METHODS: A comprehensive search of four electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library) was conducted to identify relevant papers published up to November 2019 for the systematic review and meta-analysis. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the methodological quality of selected studies. A random-effects model was used to draw metaestimates of the relationship between anaemia and adult depression. RESULTS: A total of 9706 papers were retrieved, and 14 observational epidemiological studies (9 case-control studies and 5 prospective cohort studies) comprising 10 764 cases of depression were finally included in this meta-analysis. The mean age of the participants ranged from 38.4 to 75.0 years. A significant association was identified between low haemoglobin levels and adult depression (OR or relative risk 1.43; 95% CI 1.23 to 1.65). Subgroup analyses according to study design, mean age, diagnostic criteria of anaemia, geographical region, number of participants, methodological quality and adjustment for various confounding factors such as education, smoking, comorbid disorders, physical activity, alcohol intake and medication use showed similar results. CONCLUSIONS: The current study showed that anaemia was related to an increased risk of adult depression. One of the important limitations of our study was a moderate degree of heterogeneity due to the variety of assessment tools used to identify depression and the existence of publication bias. Another limitation of this meta-analysis was the lack of prospective cohort studies.
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 | 0.022 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.028 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".