Development and validation of dietary depression index in Chinese adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Previous studies have suggested diet was associated with depressive symptoms. We aimed to develop and validate Dietary Depression Index (DDI) based on dietary prediction of depression in a large Chinese cancer screening cohort.Methods In the training set (n = 2729), we developed DDI by using intake of 20 food groups derived from a food frequency questionnaire to predict depression as assessed by Patient Health Questionnaire-9 based on the reduced rank regression method. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were used to assess the performance of DDI in evaluating depression in the validation dataset (n = 1176).Results Receiver operating characteristic analysis was constructed to determine the best cut-off value of DDI in predicting depression. In the study population, the DDI ranged from −3.126 to 1.810. The discriminative ability of DDI in predicting depression was good with the AUC of 0.799 overall, 0.794 in males and 0.808 in females. The best cut-off values of DDI for depression prediction were 0.204 overall, 0.330 in males and 0.034 in females. DDI was a validated method to assess the effects of diet on depression.Conclusion Among individual food components in DDI, fermented vegetables, fresh vegetables, whole grains and onions were inversely associated, whereas legumes, pickled vegetables and rice were positively associated with 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 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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".