Evidence Hub

Associations of dietary advanced glycation end products and the risk of depression and anxiety

Ye-Bing Zhang, Huanying He, Ruoqi Hao, F. Jiang, Xue Li, Zhengfeei Ma, Li-Qiang Qin, Guo-Chong Chen et al.

European Journal of Nutrition, 2025

112,989 participants · 4 citations

Abstract

Dietary advanced glycation end products (AGEs) might exert adverse effects on mental disorders. To explore whether elevated dietary AGEs intake is associated with increased risk of mental disorders, and whether this association might be affected by genetic risk and allostatic load (AL). A prospective cohort study, including a total of 112,989 participants, conducted at least two 24-h dietary assessments in the UK Biobank Study (2006–2010) and were followed up until 2021. Dietary AGEs, including Nε-(1-Carboxyethyl)-l-lysine (CEL), Nε-(carboxymethyl) lysine (CML), and Nδ-(5-hydro-5-methyl-4-imidazolon-2-yl)-ornithine (MG-H1) were estimated via averaged data from the multiple 24-h food assessments according to the ultra-performance LC–tandem MS based dietary AGEs database. Incident depression and anxiety, ascertained via hospital admission records and mental health questionnaires. During an average follow-up period of 12.9 years, 5489 and 5163 participants developed depression and anxiety, respectively. When comparing high (Q5) quantiles with low quantiles (Q1&2) of dietary AGEs intake, HRs (95%CIs) of depression, anxiety, and mental disorders were 1.16 (1.07, 1.27), 1.11 (1.01, 1.22) and 1.14 (1.07, 1.22), respectively. High dietary CML and MG-H1 intake were also associated increased risk of depression, anxiety, and their co-occurrence. The positive associations between dietary AGEs intake and the risk of depression were more pronounced among participants with intermediate and…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 112,989 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free