Risk and protective factors for mental disorders beyond genetics: an evidence‐based atlas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Decades of research have revealed numerous risk factors for mental disorders beyond genetics, but their consistency and magnitude remain uncer-tain. We conducted a "meta-umbrella" systematic synthesis of umbrella reviews, which are systematic reviews of meta-analyses of individual studies, by searching international databases from inception to January 1, 2021. We included umbrella reviews on non-purely genetic risk or protective factors for any ICD/DSM mental disorders, applying an established classification of the credibility of the evidence: class I (convincing), class II (highly suggestive), class III (suggestive), class IV (weak). Sensitivity analyses were conducted on prospective studies to test for temporality (reverse causation), TRANSD criteria were applied to test transdiagnosticity of factors, and A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) was employed to address the quality of meta-analyses. Fourteen eligible umbrella reviews were retrieved, summarizing 390 meta-analyses and 1,180 associations between putative risk or protective factors and mental disorders. We included 176 class I to III evidence associations, relating to 142 risk/protective factors. The most robust risk factors (class I or II, from prospective designs) were 21. For dementia, they included type 2 diabetes mellitus (risk ratio, RR from 1.54 to 2.28), depression (RR from 1.65 to 1.99) and low frequency of social contacts (RR=1.57). For opioid use disorders, the most robust risk factor was tobacco smoking (odds ratio, OR=3.07). For non-organic psychotic disorders, the most robust risk factors were clinical high risk state for psychosis (OR=9.32), cannabis use (OR=3.90), and childhood adversities (OR=2.80). For depressive disorders, they were widowhood (RR=5.59), sexual dysfunction (OR=2.71), three (OR=1.99) or four-five (OR=2.06) metabolic factors, childhood physical (OR=1.98) and sexual (OR=2.42) abuse, job strain (OR=1.77), obesity (OR=1.35), and sleep disturbances (RR=1.92). For autism spectrum disorder, the most robust risk factor was maternal overweight pre/during pregnancy (RR=1.28). For attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), they were maternal pre-pregnancy obesity (OR=1.63), maternal smoking during pregnancy (OR=1.60), and maternal overweight pre/during pregnancy (OR=1.28). Only one robust protective factor was detected: high physical activity (hazard ratio, HR=0.62) for Alzheimer's disease. In all, 32.9% of the associations were of high quality, 48.9% of medium quality, and 18.2% of low quality. Transdiagnostic class I-III risk/protective factors were mostly involved in the early neurodevelopmental period. The evidence-based atlas of key risk and protective factors identified in this study represents a benchmark for advancing clinical characterization and research, and for expanding early intervention and preventive strategies for mental disorders.
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 | 0.030 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.037 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".