The MIND (Mediterranean-DASH Diet Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay) and Mediterranean Diets are differently associated with psychosomatic complaints profile in adults: Results from SEPAHAN Cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In spite of an obvious association between diet and mental health, there is only few report regarding the association between diet and psychosomatic complaints. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association of the Mediterranean-DASH diet intervention for neurodegenerative delay (MIND) diet with psychosomatic complaints profile in comparison with the Mediterranean diet (aMED). METHODS: In this cross-sectional study on 2818 Isfahanian adults, a validated dish-based food frequency questionnaire was used to assess dietary intakes. Psychosomatic complaints profile was evaluated through a self-administered Persian validated questionnaire by using exploratory factor analysis. RESULTS: After controlling for potential confounders, individuals in the highest quintile of the MIND diet had lower risk for experiencing psychological (odds ratio (OR) = 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.42, 0.86; P trend < 0.0001), and pharyngeal-respiratory (OR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.41, 0.79; P = 0.002). The association for neuro-skeletal complaints was marginally significant (OR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.43, 1.03; P = 0.093). The aMED diet tended to lower gastrointestinal complaints (OR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.46, 1.01; P = 0.062). CONCLUSION: The MIND diet was inversely associated with different psychosomatic complaints risk, but no evidence of such an association for the MED diet was observed.
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".