Consumption of Dietary Fiber in Relation to Psychological Disorders in Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Previous observational studies suggested a relationship between dietary fiber consumption and mental health, but the findings were conflicting. We evaluated the link between dietary fiber intake and prevalence of depression, anxiety, and psychological distress among a large population of Iranian adults. Methods: A cross-sectional study among 3,362 Iranian adults working in 50 health centers was done. Data of dietary intakes were collected through a validated semiquantitative dish-based 106-item food frequency questionnaire (FFQ). Anxiety, depression, and psychological distress were defined based on the Iranian validated version of Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and General Health Questionnaire (GHQ). Results: After adjustment for potential confounders, participants in the top quartile of total dietary fiber intake had a 33% and 29% lower risk of anxiety and high psychological distress [odds ratio (OR): 0.67; 95% CI: 0.48, 0.95 and OR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.53, 0.94, respectively] compared to the bottom quartile of intake. The highest total dietary fiber intake was also inversely related to a lower risk of depression in women (OR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.45, 0.88) but not in men. Among overweight or obese participants, higher intake of dietary fiber was related to a decreased risk of high psychological distress (OR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.34, 0.79). A high level of dietary fiber intake was related to a lower risk of anxiety in normal-weight individuals (OR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.31, 0.80). Conclusion: Significant inverse associations between total dietary fiber intake with anxiety and high psychological distress were found in Iranian adults. More consumption of dietary fiber was also related to reduced odds of depression in women. More investigations with prospective nature are needed to affirm these findings.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".