Influence of psychological well-being on health: Systematic review and meta-analysis of hypertension, overweight/obesity, and mortality, including suicide.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Psychological well-being (PWB) has demonstrated health-protective effects, but its impact on specific causes of death and cardiovascular risk factors incidence has received limited attention. This systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO Registration: CRD42023387665) examine any positive dimension of PWB's association with the incidence of hypertension, overweight/obesity, metabolic syndrome, deaths from suicide, and noncommunicable disease mortality in the general adult population. METHOD: ² statistic, studies quality with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, publication bias through funnel plots, and Egger's test. Subgroup (PWB dimensions, sex, quality assessment, sample size, follow-up period, and publication dates) and metaregression analyses were conducted. RESULTS: ² = 0.0%). Common sources of heterogeneity could not be identified. CONCLUSION: Higher PWB was associated with lower noncommunicable disease mortality, likely including suicide, and lower hypertension incidence. The limited number of studies on some outcomes, along with potential publication bias and heterogeneity, constrain definitive conclusions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.010 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".