Nutritional supplementation in the treatment of violent and aggressive behavior: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aggression in correctional and psychiatric settings is relatively common and has a negative effect on physical and mental health both among inmates/clients and staff, as well as organizational-level functioning. The aim of the present study was to critically review the evidence on the effectiveness of nutritional supplements in reducing aggression and violence to contribute to a better understanding of options available for managing aggressive behaviors in adults. The EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, and PubMed databases were searched for effectiveness studies published in English anytime up until March 2020. Study quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Altogether, 14 studies met inclusion criteria; 2 investigated micronutrients, 10 examined macronutrients, while further 2 examined a combination of micro and macronutrients. Out of the 14 studies, 5 reported a beneficial effect of nutritional supplementation (omega-3 fatty acids, vitamins/minerals, S-adenosyl-l-methionine, or tryptophan). Five studies did not report a significant beneficial effect of nutritional supplementation (omega-3 fatty acids, folic acid, tryptophan, broad range supplement containing vitamins and fatty acids, and fatty acids in augmentation with valproic acid), while four studies reported mixed effects (on l-tryptophan, broad-range micronutrient formula, folic acid, and omega-3 fatty acids). The results overall indicated that research in this area is in its infancy: very few studies examined the same composition of nutritional supplementation and when they did so the results were contradictory. The methodological shortcoming of existing studies and directions for future research are discussed to facilitate high-quality research in this evolving area of nutritional psychiatry.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".