Lipid abnormalities in young patients with attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abnormal levels of long‐chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), particularly omega‐3 fatty acid (FA), have been associated with a variety of behavioural deviations, including attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The aims of our study were to define the lipid status and fatty acid composition in 37 young French‐Canadian patients with ADHD (6–12 years) matched by sex and age with 35 healthy controls. Consistent differences were noted in plasma lipids (triglycerides, total cholesterol, and phospholipids), lipoproteins (LDL‐cholesterol, HDL‐cholesterol) and apolipoproteins (Apo A‐I, Apo B‐100) of the subjects with ADHD. Furthermore, the proportion of omega‐3 FA was significantly altered as well illustrated by the decrease in alpha‐linolenic acid (ALA, p≤0.004) and the increase in EPA and DHA (p≤0.04). On the other hand, a raise of palmitic acid (p≤0.03) and a decline in oleic acid (p≤0.0001) were detected. These changes led to abnormally low ratios of PUFA/Saturates (p≤0.02), ALA/EPA (p≤0.002) and ALA/LA (p≤0.01), concomitant with a high ratio of DHA/AA (p≤0.04). Overall, this clinical survey was able to provide us with an insight into the association of ADHD with especially abnormal FA composition. Studies are underway to delineate the mechanisms.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".