Gathering the Evidence on Diet and Depression: A Protocol for an Umbrella Review and Updated Meta-Analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our objectives are to perform (1) an umbrella review on diet and depression, (2) a systematic review update on dietary patterns and depression, and (3) updated meta-analyses using studies from the previous two objectives. Systematic reviews examining the relationships between diet and depression and primary studies on the relationship between dietary patterns and depression will be systematically retrieved via several databases. All articles identified through the database searches will be imported into Covidence. Following duplicates removal, two authors will independently perform title and abstract screening and full-text assessment against eligibility criteria. Data will be extracted using tables developed for both systematic reviews and primary studies. The methodological quality of systematic reviews will be assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool. The risk of bias in randomized trials, cohort and cross-sectional studies, as well as case-control studies, will be assessed with the Cochrane risk-of-bias (RoB-2) tool, the NHLBI Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies, and the NHLBI Quality Assessment Tool for Case-Control studies, respectively. For each dietary variable, data extracted will be used to produce: (1) a summary of systematic reviews' characteristics and results table, (2) a summary of the primary studies characteristics table, (3) a qualitative summary of results from the primary studies table, and (4) a quantitative summary of results in the form of forest plots. The certainty of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. Upon completion, this systematic review will be the most comprehensive and up-to-date synthesis of currently available evidence on the relationships between diet and depression. It will serve as a key reference to guide future research and as a resource for health professionals in the fields of nutrition and psychiatry. PROSPERO CRD42022343253.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".