MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229011939 · doi:10.3389/fnut.2022.841282

The Relationship Between Linoleic Acid Intake and Psychological Disorders in Adults

2022· article· en· W4229011939 on OpenAlexaff
Sobhan Mohammadi, Ammar Hassanzadeh Keshteli, Parvane Saneei, Hamid Afshar, Ahmad Esmaillzadeh, Peyman Adibi

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Nutrition · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFatty Acid Research and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersFood Security Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical SciencesIsfahan University of Medical Sciences
KeywordsQuartileMedicineAnxietyDepression (economics)ConfoundingOdds ratioGeneral Health QuestionnairePopulationOddsCross-sectional studyHospital Anxiety and Depression ScaleDemographyLogistic regressionInternal medicinePsychiatryConfidence intervalEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The association between linoleic acid (LA) intake and mental disorders has not been extensively studied in Middle-Eastern populations. We investigated the association between LA intake and the prevalence of depression, anxiety, and psychological distress in a large group of Iranian adults. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted on 3,362 middle-aged adults. LA intake was determined through a validated dish-based 106-item semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire (FFQ). The validated Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) were used to define psychological disorders. Results: The prevalence of depression, anxiety, and psychological distress among the study population was 28.6, 13.6, and 22.6%, respectively. After adjustment for potential confounders, individuals in the top quartile of LA intake had 41% more likely to be depressed compared to those in the bottom quartile (OR = 1.41, 95% CI: 1.02-1.95). Stratified analysis by sex revealed that men in the fourth quartile of LA intake, compared to the first quartile, had 80% higher odds of depression, after considering all potential confounders (OR = 1.80, 95% CI: 1.01-3.19). More consumption of LA was also associated with higher odds of depression in older adults (OR = 2.45, 95% CI: 1.46-4.10) and normal-weight individuals (OR = 1.75, 95% CI: 1.13-2.72). Additionally, higher intake of LA was related to 90% higher odds of psychological distress in older participants (OR = 1.90, 95% CI: 1.08-3.36). No significant relation was found between LA intake and anxiety. Conclusion: We found that higher intake of LA, as percentage of energy, was positively associated with depression, especially in men, older adults, and normal-weight subjects. Higher intake of LA was also related to higher odds of psychological distress in older individuals. More studies, particularly prospective cohorts, are needed to confirm 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NutritionSame topicFatty Acid Research and HealthFrench-language works237,207