The relationship between dietary sugar consumption and anxiety disorders: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High-sugar intake is a risk factor for chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes, but less is known about its role in anxiety disorders. This systematic review aimed to systematically synthesise and assess the existing evidence regarding the association between dietary sugars intake and anxiety disorders. Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search of PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycArticles and APA PsycINFO was conducted up to 19th August 2022. Study quality was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) and the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Eleven studies (10 cross-sectional and 1 randomised controlled trial [RCT]) were included. Seven cross-sectional studies had very good quality or good quality, and the quality of the RCT was at low risk of bias. These studies examined sugar-sweetened beverages (n = 7), sugar-sweetened foods (n = 4) and/or added sugar (n = 5). The findings suggest a possible positive relationship of added sugar consumption with anxiety disorders, with age as a potential moderator in such association. No conclusions can be drawn on the associations between sugar-sweetened beverages, sugar-sweetened foods consumption and anxiety disorders. Due to the included studies being mostly cross-sectional, the conclusions drawn from the existing evidence should be interpreted with caution. The longitudinal design is warranted to investigate any causal relationship and the potential mechanisms underlying these heterogeneous results. The potential difference in effect at different ages observed in this review should be further examined.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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".