The role of olive oil and its constituents in mental health: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mounting evidence suggests that the Mediterranean diet has a beneficial effect on mental health. It has been hypothesised that this effect is mediated by a variety of foods, nutrients and constituents; however, there is a need for research elucidating which of these components contribute to the therapeutic effect. This scoping review sought to systematically search for and synthesise the research on olive oil and its constituents and their impact on mental health, including the presence or absence of a mental illness or the severity or progression of symptoms. PubMed and OVID MEDLINE databases were searched. The following article types were eligible for inclusion: human experimental and observational studies, animal and preclinical studies. Abstracts were screened in duplicate, and data were extracted using a piloted template. Data were analysed qualitatively to assess trends and gaps for further study. The PubMed and OVID MEDLINE search yielded 544 and 152 results, respectively. After full-text screening, forty-nine studies were eligible for inclusion, including seventeen human experimental, eighteen observational and fourteen animal studies. Of these, thirteen human and four animal studies used olive oil as a comparator. Observational studies reported inconsistent results, specifically five reporting higher rates of mental illness, eight reporting lower and five reporting no association with higher olive oil intake. All human experimental studies and nine of ten animal studies that assess olive oil as an intervention reported an improvement of anxiety or depression symptoms. Olive oil may benefit mental health outcomes. However, more experimental research is needed.
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 | 0.007 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".