Obesity and risk of depressive disorder in children and adolescents: A meta‐analysis of observational studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose This meta‐analysis evaluated the relationship between overweight/obesity and depressive disorders in children and adolescents. Methods We examined the databases of PubMed, Embase and Web of Science for pertinent observational studies released up until 20 February 2022. The pooled relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of obesity and overweight with depressive disorder were calculated by means of random‐effects models. The Newcastle‐Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality scale were adopted to evaluate the study quality. Results Finally, for this meta‐analysis, we evaluated 22 observational publications covering 175 135 participants (5 cohort study articles, 1 case–control study article and 16 cross‐sectional study articles). A significant positive association was found between obesity and the risk of depression (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.09–1.60, I 2 = 79.90%, P heterogeneity < 0.001) and in the association between obesity and depressive symptoms (RR 1.16, 95% CI: 1.00–1.35, I 2 = 25.0%, P heterogeneity = 0.247). On sensitivity analysis, the pooled RRs remained robust. Subgroup analysis indicated that obese children and teenagers in western countries were more prone to depression. Conclusion Evidence from this meta‐analysis, based on observational studies, supported the idea that obese children and adolescents are more likely to experience depression and depressive symptoms.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".