The gut microbiome and child and adolescent depression and anxiety: a systematic review and meta-analysis with youth consultation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Decreased gut microbial diversity is associated with greater depression symptoms in adults. Findings on the relationship between the gut microbiome and depression or anxiety in children and adolescents are mixed, and evidence syntheses are needed. Seven databases were searched for peer-reviewed studies on the gut microbiome and internalizing symptoms, depression, or anxiety, in children and adolescents (<19 years). Random-effects meta-analyses of alpha diversity indices were performed. Youth advisors validated the research findings’ relevance to their experiences and contributed to dissemination planning. Eight studies were included, representing 2,865 participants (mean age = 11.4 years, SD = 4.3). Study designs were cross-sectional (n = 5), longitudinal (n = 2), and interventional (n = 1). No association was found between alpha or beta diversity and internalizing problems, depression, or anxiety. Increased abundance of genera within phyla Bacillota (e.g., Fusicatenibacter) and Pseudomonadota (e.g., Escherichia), along with decreased abundance of other Bacillota genera (e.g., Faecalibacterium), were associated with depression and anxiety symptoms. This review identified preliminary associations between specific bacterial taxa and depression and anxiety in children and adolescents. Larger studies using comprehensive analytical approaches are needed to explore the role of the gut microbiome in the genesis and treatment of internalizing disorders.
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 | 0.011 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.023 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".