Lipid variability in drug-naïve individuals affected with Major Depressive Disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background This study aimed to provide a comprehensive synthesis of the evidence examining lipid profiles in drug-naïve MDD patients.Materials and methods We searched PubMed, Scopus, and ISI Web of Science up to August 2023 for total cholesterol, HDL-C, LDL-C, and triglyceride levels in drug-naïve MDD patients.Results A total of 17 articles comprising 2174 individuals including drug-naïve MDD subjects and controls were included. Our results showed that concentrations of total cholesterol were lower in drug-naïve MDD patients compared with healthy controls (SMD −0.49, 95% CI −0.881 to −0.105; p = 0.015; I2 = 90.6%). However, comparison of other lipid levels between MDD patients and healthy controls demonstrated no significant difference. The results revealed that the association of total cholesterol levels with MDD is more prominent in male-dominant studies (SMD −1.20, 95% CI −2.23 to −0.18, I2 = 87.9%) than in female-dominant studies (SMD −0.25, 95% CI −0.63–0.13, I2 = 89.0%). In meta-regression, none of the factors including year of publication, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale score, sample size, BMI, and mean age of participants had a significant influence on the association between cholesterol levels and MDD.Conclusions Lower levels of total cholesterol, especially in males, are associated with MDD, so early lipid monitoring and targeted interventions are necessary.
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 | 0.011 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".