Coffee and caffeine intake in relation to symptoms of psychological disorders among adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Given that there is an inconsistency in the findings related to the relationship between coffee and caffeine consumption and symptoms of psychological disorders, we performed a cross-sectional analysis to examine the association between coffee and caffeine intake and symptoms of psychological disorders among adults. DESIGN: In this cross-sectional study, 3362 participants were included. We assessed the coffee and caffeine intakes using a self-completed FFQ. Symptoms of depression, anxiety and psychological distress were assessed using Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and General Health Questionnaire screening tools. SETTING: Fifty different healthcare centres located in the province of Isfahan, Iran. PARTICIPANTS: This study was performed on 3362 Iranian general adults working in healthcare centres. RESULTS: The mean age of participants in this study was 36·2 ± 7·8 years. After controlling for potential confounders, individuals who consumed coffee weekly or more had a significantly lower odds of symptoms of depression (OR 0·67; 95 % CI (0·46, 0·96)) and symptoms of anxiety (OR 0·57; 95 % CI (0·34, 0·95)) compared with those who did not consume coffee. However, no significant association was found between coffee intake and symptoms of psychological distress (OR 0·98; 95 % CI (0·68, 1·42)). No significant relationship was found between caffeine intake and odds of symptoms of depression (OR 0·94; 95 % CI (0·75, 1·16)), symptoms of anxiety (OR 0·90; 95 % CI (0·67, 1·20)) and symptoms of psychological distress (OR 1·13; 95 % CI (0·89, 1·42)). CONCLUSION: Compared with lack of coffee intake, weekly or more coffee consumption might be correlated with symptoms of depression and anxiety.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".