The association of red meat consumption and mental health in women: A cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Previous studies have shown that red meat consumption has beneficial effects on health. The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between red meat consumption and depression, anxiety and psychological distress in Tehrani women. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, 482 women aged 20-50 years old referred to the health centers of Tehran University of Medical Sciences in 2018 were selected by multistage cluster sampling. The usual dietary intake was evaluated using a semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire containing 168 items that its validity and reliability were approved previously. The red meat category was defined as the sum of red meats (beef, lamb), and organ meats (beef liver, kidney, and heart, ruminant meat). Psychological disorders were assessed using a validated Depression, Anxiety, Stress Scales (DASS) questionnaires with 21-items. In the logistic regression analysis, the results were adjusted to the confounding factors. RESULTS: The mean age of the study participants was 31.87 ± 7.6 years. The prevalence of depressive symptoms, anxiety and psychological distress among participants was 34%, 40% and 42%, respectively. After controlling for potential confounders, women in the highest quartile of red meat had a highest prevalence of depressive symptoms (OR: 2.51; 95% CI: 1.32-4.76; p = 0.002), anxiety (OR: 1.82; 95% CI: 1.00-3.29; p = 0.034) and stress (OR: 3.47; 95% CI: 1.88-6.42; p < 0.001) compared with those in the lowest quartile. CONCLUSIONS: We found a significant association between red meat intake and mental health in women. Prospective studies are needed 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".