MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ketogenic Diets and Depression and Anxiety

2025· article· en· W4415929148 on OpenAlexaff
Reinhard Janssen‐Aguilar, Tulassi Vije, Malika Peera, Huda Al-Shamali, Shakila Meshkat, Wendy Lou, Hugo Laviada‐Molina, Mary L. Phillips

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Psychiatry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiet and metabolism studies
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnxietyDepression (economics)KetosisKetogenic dietMEDLINEClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Ketogenic diets (KDs) have been hypothesized to influence mental health through pathways involving mitochondrial function, inflammation, and neurotransmitters, but their therapeutic value in psychiatric populations remains uncertain. Objective: To assess the associations between KDs and mental health outcomes in adults, with a focus on depressive and anxiety symptoms. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, and APA PsycINFO were searched on April 18, 2025. Additional studies were identified through manual searches and clinical trial registries. Study Selection: Studies involving adults aged 18 years or older receiving a KD (<26% energy from carbohydrates or <50 g/day) and assessed with validated psychiatric scales were eligible. Designs included randomized clinical trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental (QSE) studies, cross-sectional studies, case series, and case reports. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data were extracted by 1 reviewer and verified by 2 others. Risk of bias was assessed using critical appraisal tools from the Joanna Briggs Institute. Random-effects meta-analyses were run separately for RCTs and QSEs. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was changes in psychiatric symptom severity measured by standardized scales, reported as standardized mean differences (SMDs) or standardized mean change using change scores (SMCCs). Results: A total of 50 studies (41 718 participants) were included. Ten RCTs on KD for depressive symptoms vs control diets showed a significant association (SMD, -0.48; 95% CI, -0.87 to -0.10; I2 = 67.2%), with stronger associations in studies using ketone monitoring, nonobese participants, very low-carbohydrate interventions, and non-high-carbohydrate comparators. Nine RCTs on anxiety showed no significant association (SMD, -0.03; 95% CI, -0.18 to 0.12; I2 = 41%). In QSEs, 9 on depressive symptoms showed a consistent association (SMCC, -0.66; 95% CI, -0.83 to -0.50; I2 = 0%), and 6 on anxiety showed similar results (SMCC, -0.58; 95% CI, -0.81 to -0.36; I2 = 0%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, KDs were associated with modest improvements in depressive symptoms, particularly with biochemical ketosis verification, while anxiety evidence was inconclusive. Given heterogeneity, comparators, and short follow-up, well-powered trials with standardized, verified protocols, structured support, and prespecified outcomes are needed to confirm efficacy and durability.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA PsychiatrySame topicDiet and metabolism studiesFrench-language works237,207