Back

Body mass index modifies symptom-specific metabolomic associations with depressive symptoms in the Estonian Biobank

Kurvits, S.; Taba, N.; Estonian Biobank research team, ; Milani, L.; Haller, T.; Lehto, K.

2026-09-03 psychiatry and clinical psychology
10.64898/2026.09.01.26361909 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: Metabolomic studies of depression have yielded heterogeneous findings, potentially because metabolic correlates differ across symptoms and metabolic states. We examined symptom-specific metabolomic associations and whether body mass index (BMI) modifies these relationships. Methods: We analyzed 83,717 Estonian Biobank participants (70.6% female) with 249 Nightingale metabolite measures and 14 lifetime depressive symptoms. Logistic regression models progressively adjusted for sociodemographic, lifestyle, medication, and BMI factors. BMI-related attenuation and metabolite x BMI interactions were evaluated, followed by self-organizing map analyses of broader metabolic context. Results: Before BMI adjustment, 660 metabolite-symptom associations were Bonferroni-significant; 136 were significant after BMI adjustment, including 105 retained associations. Weight-related associations showed the strongest BMI dependence: none of 199 weight-gain associations and 2 of 115 weight-loss associations were retained. Among 691 preselected metabolite-symptom pairs, 211 (30.5%) showed significant metabolite x BMI interactions after false discovery rate correction. Six systemic metabolic profiles were identified, but only 3 of 211 BMI-sensitive pairs showed additional profile-dependent heterogeneity. Conclusions: Circulating metabolic correlates of depressive symptoms are heterogeneous and strongly dependent on symptom phenotype and BMI-related metabolic context. These findings suggest that metabolic biomarkers in depression should be interpreted in relation to both symptom presentation and metabolic state rather than as uniform correlates of the disorder.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.