Dietary riboflavin intake in relation to psychological disorders in Iranian adults: an observational study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Findings of earlier investigations on association between dietary riboflavin intake and psychological disorders are contradictory. Therefore, the relation between dietary riboflavin intake and depression, anxiety, and psychological distress was assessed in Iranian adults. In this cross-sectional study, dietary intakes of 3362 middle-aged adults were collected using a validated dish-based food frequency questionnaire. Daily intake of riboflavin for each participant was calculated by summing up the amount of riboflavin contents of all foods and dishes. Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and General Health Questionnaire (GHQ), as validated questionnaires among Iranians, have been applied to assess depression, anxiety, and psychological distress. After considering potential confounders, adults in the top energy-adjusted quartile of riboflavin intake, compared to the bottom quartile, had decreased odds of depression (OR = 0.66; 95%CI 0.49, 0.88), anxiety (OR = 0.64; 95%CI 0.44, 0.94) and high psychological distress (OR = 0.65; 95%CI 0.48, 0.89). Stratified analysis by sex revealed that men in the forth quartile of riboflavin intake, compared with those in the first quartile, had respectively 51 and 55% lower odds of depression (OR = 0.49; 95%CI 0.29, 0.83) and anxiety (OR = 0.45; 95%CI 0.21, 0.95). In women, riboflavin intake was significantly associated with lower odds of psychological distress (OR = 0.67; 95%CI 0.46, 0.98). An inverse relation was observed between dietary riboflavin intake and chance of psychological disorders in Iranian adults. High intake of riboflavin decreased the chance of depression and anxiety in men and high psychological distress in women. More prospective studies 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".