Cited by 101Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyObesity, Physical Activity, DietEating Disorders and Behaviors

Obesity as a causal risk factor for depression: systematic review and meta-analysis of Mendelian Randomization studies and implications for population mental health

Open access
Jokela, Markus, Laakasuo, Michael·2023·Journal of Psychiatric Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Obesity has been associated with elevated risk of depression. If this association is causal, the increasing obesity prevalence might lead to worsening population mental health, but the strength of the causal effect has not been systematically evaluated. SUBJECTS/METHODS: The current study provides a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies examining associations between body mass index and depression using Mendelian randomization with multiple genetic variants as instruments for body mass index. We used this estimate to calculate the expected changes in prevalence of population psychological distress from the 1990s-2010s, which were compared with the empirically observed trends in psychological distress in the Health Survey for England (HSE) and U.S. National Health Interview Surveys (NHIS). RESULTS: Meta-analysis of 8 Mendelian randomization studies indicated an OR = 1.33 higher depression risk associated with obesity (95% confidence interval 1.19, 1.48). Between 15% and 20% of the participants of HSE and NHIS reported at least moderate psychological distress. The increase of obesity prevalence from the 1990s-2010s in HSE and NHIS would have led to a 0.6 percentage-point increase in population psychological distress. CONCLUSIONS: Mendelian randomization studies suggest that obesity is a causal risk factor for elevated risk of depression. The increasing obesity rates may have modestly increased the prevalence of depressive symptoms in the general population. Mendelian randomization relies on methodological assumptions that may not always hold, so other quasi-experimental methods are needed to confirm the current conclusions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2023.05.034

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 51 · Cited by 101

Authors
Jokela, M., & Laakasuo, M.
Affiliations
University of Helsinki (FI)
Corresponding author
Jokela, Markus
Venue
Journal of Psychiatric Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-07
Volume
163
Pages
86-92
ISSN
0022-3956 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4368341683
Cited by
101
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 33 · 2025: 39 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 3
FWCI
3.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Psychiatric Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Työväentutkimus Vuosikirja (submittedVersion)
Funders
Academy of Finland (311578, 345186)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Eating Disorders and Behaviors
Keywords
obesity, depression, body mass index, causal risk factors, psychological distress, population mental health, obesity prevalence trends, Health Survey for England, National Health Interview Survey, genetic instruments
MeSH terms
Depression, Humans, Mental Health, Obesity, Risk Factors, Body Mass Index, Genome-Wide Association Study, Mendelian Randomization Analysis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review