MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W103480393

Fish oils for depression?

2008· article· en· W103480393 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Simon N. Young

Notice bibliographique

RevuePubMed · 2008
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineNursing
ThématiqueFatty Acid Research and Health
Établissements canadiensMcGill University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésEicosapentaenoic acidDepression (economics)Fish oilDocosahexaenoic acidMoodPsychiatryFish <Actinopterygii>MedicinePsychologyFisheryChemistryBiologyFatty acidPolyunsaturated fatty acidBiochemistry
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

A 58-year-old man's condition was stable on a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) after 3 major depressive episodes in the previous 10 years. He disliked the idea of taking a drug for a long time and at one point took himself off the SSRI and started taking St. John's wort. However, the reappearance of symptoms of depression soon persuaded him to resume the SSRI. As discussed in a previous column (J Psychiatry Neurosci 2003;28:471), he decided, on the advice of his physician, not to try over-the-counter preparations of S-adenosylmethionine or 5-hydroxytryptophan. However, he continued to look for a more “natural” treatment to prevent the recurrence of depression. Research on the Web convinced him that eating more fish or taking fish oils might be the answer, but he had several questions. Is there good evidence for the effectiveness of fish oils? Should he eat more fish or take fish oil supplements? If he took supplements should he take one with higher levels of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) or docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)? Is there a concern about mercury or polychlorinated biphenyls in fish and fish oils? Recent meta-analyses have looked at the effect of fish oils (omega-3 fatty acids) on depression. Most studies, all of which are relatively small, looked at the effect in patients with unipolar or bipolar depression who were already taking antidepressants or mood stabilizers. Different studies looked at the effect of EPA, DHA or their combination, and the dosages varied from 1 to 9.6 g daily. Although the meta-analyses indicated a significant antidepressant effect, different studies gave markedly discrepant results. No factors, such as dosage or the use of EPA or DHA, could be identified to account for the discrepancies. There is also the possibility of a publication bias. Given that no studies have looked at the ability of fish oils to prevent the recurrence of depression and that the evidence for the treatment of depression remains preliminary, it would be inappropriate to advise the patient to substitute fish oils for the SSRI. However, adding fish oil supplements to the SSRI could be beneficial. The American Heart Association recommends that healthy adults eat at least 2 servings of fish a week, particularly fish with higher levels of DHA and EPA, such as mackerel, lake trout, herring, sardines, albacore tuna and salmon (www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3006624). There is evidence that increased intake of fish oils is beneficial for the heart, and the possibility that fish oils may also help prevent depression, while not supported by evidence, remains plausible. Given that no dose-response relation was seen in the meta-analyses of depression treatment, a daily intake of 1 g (DHA plus EPA), the lowest dose used in the clinical trials, is reasonable. Fish oil supplements may have some advantages over fish consumption. Epidemiologic evidence relates increased fish consumption to a decreased incidence of depression, but no clinical trials have been done with fish consumption. Further, tests of a limited number of over-the-counter fish oil supplements have revealed negligible contents of mercury and organochlorines, including polychlorinated biphenyls, whereas these compounds are a concern with fish intake. In summary there is not sufficient evidence to suggest the use of fish oils for the treatment of depression and no evidence for the prevention of depression. Nonetheless, fish oils are good for the heart, have no demonstrated adverse effects when taken in reasonable dosages, and could potentially be beneficial for mood. Although patients should be discouraged from taking fish oils as a substitute for antidepressants or mood stabilizers, if they wish to take fish oils as an adjunct to those treatments, they should be aware of the tentative nature of the evidence for a beneficial effect on mood and inform themselves about possible contaminants. Simon N. Young, PhD Department of Psychiatry McGill University Montreal, Que.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,024
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,082

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0240,003

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,068
Tête enseignante GPT0,306
Écart entre enseignants0,238 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations3
Publié2008
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePubMed→Même sujetFatty Acid Research and Health→Travaux en français237 207→