Ultra-processed food intake and risk of depression: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Objective: to conduct a systematic review of the observational studies analyzing the association between ultra-processed food (UPF) intake and the risk of depression. Design: the search adhered to the guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA); a search for observational studies published until June 2020 was performed in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases, followed by additional manual searches. Eight reviewers, working independently in teams of two, screened studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We resolved disagreements through discussion or, if necessary, through adjudication by a third (LH). And the study assessed cross-sectional studies using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) methodological checklist and cohort and case-control studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for quality. We used a tabular format to summarize the articles. Results: twenty-eight studies evaluating UPF intake and risk of depression were finally selected, 21 of which had a cross-sectional design, 6 studies had a cohort design, and 1 had a case-control design. Of these, 4 cohort studies and 17 cross-sectional studies found that consumption of UPF were positively associated with depression or depressive symptoms. Conclusions: our review demonstrated that most studies included in the systematic review showed that UPF consumption is associated with the risk of depression. Future studies should consider the use of validated food intake assessments and standardized depression assessment methods to promote comparability between studies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".