Relationship Between Fruit and Vegetables Intake and Common Mental Disorders in Youth: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Recent evidence suggests that adequate fruit and vegetables intake (FVI) might be associated with lower risk of common mental disorders (CMDs) in adults, but studies in youth are also beginning to emerge and are synthesized in this systematic review. Methods: Online databases were searched from inception to 30 October 2020 to locate cross-sectional, cohort, and case-control studies focusing on the FVI and CMDs in youth (i.e., 10–18 years old). The risk of bias of studies was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale. Results: Among 3,944 records identified, 12 studies (8 cross-sectional, 1 case-control, and 3 prospective cohort studies) were included in the final synthesis. None of the prospective cohort studies identified a statistically significant association between FVI and CMDs in youth, although inconsistent associations were reported in cross-sectional and case-control studies. Conclusion: The lack of associations between FVI and CMDs in youth, along with consistent associations in adults, might be explained by the accumulation of risk theoretical model and methodological challenges.
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 | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| 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".