Background: Nutritional psychiatry increasingly links diet quality and specific bioactive nutrients to depression and anxiety outcomes. Mechanistic evidence implicates neuroimmune activation, inflammation, altered neurotransmitter synthesis, and microbiota-derived metabolites. Objective: The objective of this study is to synthesize evidence on omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (n-3 PUFAs), the microbiota–gut–brain axis, and vitamins and minerals that influence neurotransmitter synthesis, inflammation, and brain function and to translate these findings into food-based strategies. Methods: This study consisted of a focused synthesis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), meta-analyses, and systematic reviews indexed in PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science, selected for relevance to omega-3s, probiotics/prebiotics, dietary patterns, and micronutrients (folate/B-vitamins, vitamin D, magnesium, zinc, and vitamin C/copper pathways). Results: RCT and meta-analytic evidence suggest modest benefits of omega-3 supplementation for anxiety severity and depressive symptoms, with heterogeneity by dose, EPA: DHA composition, and baseline inflammatory status. The gut–brain axis literature supports bidirectional effects of stress and microbiota, and meta-analyses of probiotics/prebiotics show small improvements in depressive and anxiety symptoms, likely dependent on strain and host phenotype. Micronutrients serve as enzymatic cofactors for monoamine and GABA synthesis and modulate immune signaling; clinical effects are the most consistent when correcting insufficiency or in biomarker-defined subgroups. A whole-diet RCT demonstrates that structured dietary improvement can reduce depressive symptoms as adjunctive therapy. Conclusions: A food-first approach emphasizing Mediterranean-style dietary patterns, omega-3-rich seafood, a diverse array of fiber, and micronutrient density is the most defensible. Supplementation may be considered selectively, guided by clinical context and nutritional status.

Burn mortality equations are developed in broad burn populations and then applied to severe burns, yet validation studies report discrimination far more often than calibration. Discrimination establishes only that a score ranks patients correctly within the population at hand; it is the predicted probability that is used for audit, benchmarking and discussion of prognosis. We externally validated the Burn Mortality Prediction (BUMP) and revised Baux equations as probability models, with Baux and the Abbreviated Burn Severity Index (ABSI) as ranking scores, in 172 consecutive adults with acute thermal burns of at least 20% total body surface area admitted to a tertiary burn centre in Bulgaria between 24 January 2019 and 18 July 2026. Published coefficients were applied without refitting. The cohort differed substantially from the BUMP development registry: median total body surface area was 27.5% against 7%, and in-hospital mortality was 37.2% (64 deaths) against 8.8%. Both equations nonetheless tracked observed risk. Mean predicted mortality was 32.7% for revised Baux and 32.3% for BUMP, observed-to-expected ratios were 1.14 (95% confidence interval, 0.88–1.45) and 1.15 (0.89–1.47), calibration slopes were 1.05 (0.73–1.38) and 1.03 (0.71–1.36), and Brier scores were 0.142 and 0.150. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve were 0.878 for ABSI, 0.870 for revised Baux, 0.859 for BUMP and 0.827 for Baux. The prespecified comparison of the six-input BUMP score with the three-variable revised Baux score gave a difference of −0.011 (−0.041 to 0.019), excluding any BUMP advantage larger than 0.019. In major burns, published equations transported with acceptable calibration and the more elaborate model conferred no discernible advantage.