MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3033742644 · doi:10.1139/apnm-2019-0683

Nutrition interventions in populations with mental health conditions: a scoping review

2020· review· en· W3033742644 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Stephana J. Cherak, Kirsten M. Fiest, Laura VanderSluis, Carlota Basualdo‐Hammond, Diane Lorenzetti, Sue Buhler, Janet Stadnyk, Lorna Driedger, Lori Hards, Leah Gramlich, Tanis R. Fenton

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChild Nutrition and Feeding Issues
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalAlberta Health ServicesHotchkiss Brain InstituteUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionMedicineMental healthRandomized controlled trialAnxietyClinical trialQuality of life (healthcare)PsychiatryEating disordersSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Intervention (counseling)Internal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nutrition is a modifiable factor for intervention in mental disorders. This scoping review characterized nutrition intervention research in mental disorders. A 3-category framework characterized nutrition interventions: Guide (e.g., counselling), Provide (e.g., food provisions), and Add (e.g., supplementation). Nutrition interventions were classified as single-component (e.g., Guide) or complex (e.g., Guide-Provide). Sixty-nine trials met inclusion criteria, 96% were randomized controlled trials. Most commonly diagnosed mental disorders were depressive disorder (i.e., persistent) or major depressive disorder (n = 39), schizophrenia (n = 17), and other psychotic disorders (n = 13). Few trials included patients with anxiety disorders (n = 2) or bipolar disorders (n = 3). Several trials (n = 15, 22%) assessed and implemented nutrition interventions to improve dietary patterns, of which 11 (73%) reported statistically significant and clinically important positive effects of nutrition interventions on mental disorders. The majority of the trials (n = 61, 90%) investigated supplementation, most commonly adding essential fatty acids, vitamins, or minerals. The majority (n = 48, 70%) reported either statistically significant or clinically important effect and 31 (51%) reported both. Though most interventions led to statistically significant improvements, trials were heterogeneous for targeted mental disorders, nutrition interventions, and outcomes assessed. Given considerable heterogeneity, further research from robust and clinically relevant trials is required to support high-quality health care with effective nutrition interventions. Novelty Future research on whole-diet interventions powered to detect changes in mental health outcomes as primary objectives is needed. Dietitians may be an opportunity to improve feasibility and efficacy of nutrition interventions for mental disorder patients. Dietitians may be of value to educate mental health practitioners on the importance of nutrition.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.007
Bibliometrics0.0120.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Physiology Nutrition and MetabolismSame topicChild Nutrition and Feeding IssuesFrench-language works237,207