Breakfast skipping alone and in interaction with inflammatory based quality of diet increases the risk of higher scores of psychological problems profile in a large sample of Iranian adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors investigate the association of breakfast skipping and its interaction with a dietary inflammatory index (DII) with the severity of psychological disorders. A total of 2876 Iranian general adults were enrolled in this cross-sectional study. Psychological problems profile score was calculated using the regression method in the framework of factor analysis based on depression, anxiety and psychological distress. The higher scores indicate more severity of mental problem. The frequency of breakfast eating in a week was assessed. Dietary intakes were assessed using a food-frequency questionnaire and twenty-seven items were included in the calculation of DII. In the crude model, individuals who ate breakfast seldom had the highest odds for having worse psychological problems profile (OR 3⋅59; 95 % CI 2⋅52, 5⋅11). Adjustment for various confounders did not change the associations (OR 3⋅35; 95 % CI 2⋅11, 5⋅32). In the adjusted multinomial logistic regression model, participants with high DII (>median) who skipped breakfast had highest risk of being in the higher tertiles of psychological problems profile compared with those who had low DII (
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".