The relationship between the Mediterranean diet and Axis I disorders: A systematic review of observational studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Axis I disorders are one of the major health burdens worldwide. Evidence suggests that Mediterranean diet has key biological factors associated with reducing the progression of these disorders. This systematic review aimed to clarify the relationship between Mediterranean diet and Axis I disorders. PubMed and Scopus databases were searched from January 2016 up to June 2021. Those observational studies in English language that assessed the relationship between Mediterranean diet and Axis I disorders (such as depression, anxiety, eating disorders, schizophrenia, etc.) were included in this review. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate the quality of studies. Thirty-six studies (15 cohorts, 19 cross-sectional, and 2 case-control) met the inclusion criteria. The results revealed that more than two-thirds of the studies (25 studies, 69.44%) had significant protective relationship between receiving Mediterranean diet and reducing the symptoms or incidence of Axis I disorders. Most studies were performed on depression (29 studies measured depression at least as one of the Axis I disorders), of which 72.41% reported an inverse relationship. There were also 9 studies on anxiety (studies that measured anxiety at least as one of the Axis I disorders), that 77.77% of them observed protective association. Moreover, majority of the studies (25 studies, 69.44%) had high quality, of which 76% found an inverse relationship. In conclusion, it seems that the Mediterranean diet can reduce the symptoms or the occurrence of Axis I disorders (especially depression and anxiety). However, more extensive review studies, particularly with interventional designs, are necessary to prove the result.
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 | 0.009 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".