The Relationship Between Linoleic Acid Intake and Psychological Disorders in Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".