The long-term effects of childhood adiposity on depression and anxiety in adulthood: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This review aimed to evaluate the association between childhood adiposity and depression and anxiety risk in adulthood. Methods: MEDLINE, PsychInfo, Embase, CINAHL, and Scopus were searched on June 6, 2022, to identify studies that investigated the association between childhood weight status (age ≤18 years) and outcomes of depression and/or anxiety in adulthood (age ≥19 years). Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and results were narratively synthesized. Results: Sixteen studies were eligible for inclusion, with heterogeneity in methods and follow-up durations complicating comparisons. Six out of eight studies found a statistically significant association between childhood adiposity and increased likelihood of depression in adulthood, particularly in females. However, overall evidence was of moderate quality and study limitations prevented causal conclusions. In contrast, limited evidence and mixed findings were reported for the associations between childhood adiposity and depressive symptom severity or anxiety outcomes in adulthood. Conclusions: Evidence suggests that childhood adiposity is associated with greater vulnerability to depression in adulthood, particularly in females. However, further research is warranted to address the limitations discussed. Future research should also explore how changes in weight status from childhood to adulthood might differentially influence the likelihood of depression.
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 | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".