Adults with depressive symptoms have lower odds of dietary supplement use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aim to evaluate dietary supplement and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use in individuals with depressive symptoms. Furthermore, we conducted a comparative analysis of the usage of these agents among individuals with depressive symptoms, differentiating between those who were using antidepressants and those who were not. Additionally, we compared individuals with depressive symptoms who were not using antidepressants with participants who did not have depressive symptoms as well as individuals with depressive symptoms who were using antidepressants with individuals without depressive symptoms. METHOD: The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2007-2018 data was collected. Depressive symptoms were assessed using patient health questionnaire-9. Dietary supplement and antidepressants use was evaluated using Dietary Supplement Use and Prescription Medications Questionnaires. RESULTS: 31,445 participants, with 2870 (8.05%) having depressive symptoms were included. Participants with depressive symptoms had significantly lower odds of dietary supplement use compared with those without depressive symptoms (aOR = 0.827, 95% CI: 0.700,0.977, p = 0.026). Participants with depressive symptoms who were using antidepressants had significantly higher odds of dietary supplement (aOR = 1.290, 95% CI: 1.038,1.604, p = 0.022) compared with participants with depressive symptoms who were not using antidepressants. Furthermore, Participants with depressive symptoms who weren't using antidepressants had significantly lower odds of dietary supplement use (aOR = 0.762, 95% CI: 0.632,0.918, p = 0.005) compared with participants without depressive symptoms. In individuals with treated depressive symptoms compared to those without depressive symptoms, CAM use was significantly lower (aOR = 0.763, 95% CI = 0.598,0.973, p = 0.030). CONCLUSION: Individuals with depressive symptoms have lower odds of dietary supplement use. Further studies are needed to replicate these findings and examine the underlying mechanisms for this association.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".