ArticleNutrients2026
Dietary Patterns and an Adverse Mental Health Indicator Among School-Attending Brazilian Adolescents: Analyses of the 2015 and 2019
Article in Nutrients, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesDietary patterns may be associated with adolescent mental health, but nationwide Brazilian evidence based on empirically derived patterns across survey editions remains limited. This study identified dietary patterns and examined their associations with a survey-specific adverse mental health indicator among school-attending adolescents aged 13-17 years in the 2015 and 2019 National Survey of School Health (
methodsThe two independent cross-sectional surveys were analyzed separately, with the 2015 analysis restricted to Sample 2. Two dietary patterns were derived in each edition using principal component analysis. The primary outcome was membership in the highest category defined from the weighted distribution of a non-diagnostic, survey-specific composite score of adverse mental health-related indicators. Survey-weighted modified Poisson regression estimated adjusted prevalence ratios (PRs); continuous, ordinal, between-survey heterogeneity, alternative-outcome, weighted-PCA, and E-value analyses assessed robustness.
resultsBoth surveys yielded ultra-processed/unhealthy and healthy/traditional patterns. Compared with the highest adherence quartile (Q4), the lowest quartile (Q1) of the ultra-processed/unhealthy pattern was associated with a lower prevalence of the adverse indicator in 2015 (adjusted PR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.73-0.98) and 2019 (adjusted PR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.76-0.86). Conversely, Q1 of the healthy/traditional pattern was associated with a higher prevalence in 2015 (adjusted PR = 1.75, 95% CI: 1.45-2.10) and 2019 (adjusted PR = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.26-1.42). No between-survey heterogeneity was detected for the ultra-processed/unhealthy pattern, whereas the healthy/traditional estimates differed in magnitude between surveys; sensitivity analyses were directionally consistent.
conclusionsGreater ultra-processed/unhealthy adherence and lower healthy/traditional adherence were associated with a higher prevalence of the survey-specific adverse mental health indicator. Because the surveys were cross-sectional and used edition-specific measures, these findings do not establish temporality, causality, or temporal change in invariant constructs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.