Adherence to the Mediterranean diet is associated with better quality of life: data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The Mediterranean diet has positively influenced various medical conditions, but only a paucity of studies has considered the relation between the Mediterranean diet and quality of life (QOL) among people living in North America.\n\nObjective: We investigated whether a higher adherence to the Mediterranean diet (aMED) was associated with better QOL and decreased pain, stiffness, disability, and depression in a large cohort of North Americans from the Osteoarthritis Initiative.\n\nDesign: aMED was evaluated through a validated Mediterranean diet score categorized into quintiles. Outcomes of interest were QOL [assessed with the 12-Item Short-Form Health Outcome Survey (SF-12)]; disability, pain, and stiffness [assessed in both knees with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC)]; and depressive symptoms [assessed with the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D)].\n\nResults: Of the 4470 participants (2605 women; mean age: 61.3 y), those with a higher aMED had significantly more favorable scores on all outcomes investigated (P < 0.0001 for all comparisons). After adjustment for potential confounders in linear regression analyses, a higher aMED was significantly associated with a higher SF-12 physical composite scale value (β: 0.10; 95% CI: 0.05, 0.15; P < 0.0001), lower WOMAC scores (except for stiffness), and lower CES-D scores (β: −0.05; 95% CI: −0.09, −0.01; P = 0.01). An adjusted logistic regression analysis, taking as reference those in the 2 highest quintiles of the aMED score, confirmed these findings.\n\nConclusion: Higher aMED is associated with better QOL and decreased pain, disability, and depressive symptoms.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".