The Relation between Body Mass Index, Mental Health, and Functional Disability: A European Population Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between body mass, mental disorders, and functional disability in the general population of 6 European countries. METHOD: Data (n = 21 425) were derived from the European Study on the Epidemiology of Mental Disorders (ESEMeD). The third version of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview was administered to assess mental disorders (mood, anxiety, and alcohol disorders) according to the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-fourth edition, body mass index (BMI) (kg/m(2), based on self-reported height and weight), and functional disability in the previous 30 days, assessed with the World Health Organization Disablement Assessment Scale-second version. RESULTS: About 3% of the respondents were underweight (BMI < 18.5 kg/m(2)), 53% had normal weight (BMI 18.5 to 24.9 kg/m(2)), 33% were overweight (BMI 25 to 29.9 kg/m(2)), and the remaining 12% met criteria for obesity (BMI >or= 30.0 kg/m(2)). Compared with individuals of normal weight, obese individuals were more likely to have mood (OR 1.3; 95%CI, 1.0 to 1.8) or more than one mental disorder (OR 1.4; 95%CI, 1.0 to 2.2). BMI had no impact on work loss days, whereas mental disorders had a considerable effect on work loss days. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first cross-national study investigating the role between BMI, mental disorders, and functional disability in the general population. Being overweight or obese is a common condition in the 6 ESEMeD countries. Although there is a moderate association between obesity and mental disorders, BMI did not independently influence functional disability.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".