Red and white meat intake in relation to mental disorders in adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The association between meat intake and mental disorders are less investigated and the findings are contradicting. We aimed to examine the association between meat intake and depression, anxiety and psychological distress in Iranian adults. Methods This cross-sectional study included 3362 subjects with 18-55 years old. A dish-based 106-item semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire (FFQ), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), General Health Questionnaire (GHQ), all validated in Iranian population, were applied to collect data on meat intake, anxiety, depression and psychological distress, respectively. Results The prevalence of depression, anxiety and psychological distress in the study population was 28.6, 13.6 and 22.6%, respectively. After considering potential confounders, individuals in top quartile of red meat intake had 43% increased risk of depression (OR=1.43; 95%CI: 1.09-1.89), compared to the first quartile. No significant relationship was observed between red meat intake and anxiety or psychological distress. White meat intake was not associated with mental disorders. Stratified analysis by gender showed that male participants in the highest quartile of red meat intake had 92% higher risk of depression (95%CI: 1.17-3.15). Red and white meat intake was not associated with mental disorders in women. In overweight or obese individuals, no association was found between red meat intake and mental disorders, while higher intake of white meat was significantly associated with lower odds of psychological distress (OR=0.64; 95%CI: 0.42-0.99) and marginally associated with lower risk of depression (OR= 0.68; 95%CI: 0.45-1.00). In normal weight participants, highest quartile of red meat intake associated with increased odds of depression (OR= 1.66; 95%CI: 1.14-2.42). Conclusions We found that higher intake of red meat was associated with increased risk of depression, especially in males and normal weight participants. In overweight or obese subjects, white meat intake was inversely associated with psychological distress.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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".