A randomized clinical trial to determine the efficacy of manufacturers’ recommended doses of omega‐3 fatty acids from different sources in facilitating cardiovascular disease risk reduction (LB329)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A randomized clinical trial to determine the efficacy of manufacturers’ recommended doses of omega‐3 fatty acids from different sources in facilitating cardiovascular disease risk reduction Maggie Laidlaw 1 , Carla A. Cockerline 1 , William J. Rowe: 1 1 Nutrasource Diagnostics Inc. Omega‐3 fatty acids confer beneficial health effects, but North Americans are lacking in their dietary omega‐3‐rich intake. Omega‐3 supplementation is an alternative to dietary consumption of fish; however, not all omega‐3 products are created equal. The trial objective was to assess changes in cardiovascular risk following supplementation with four omega‐3 supplements. This was an open‐label, randomized, cross‐over study with thirty‐five healthy subjects. Supplement daily doses (as recommended on product labels) were: Concentrated Triglyceride (rTG) fish oil: EPA 650 mg, DHA 450 mg Ethyl Ester (EE) fish oil: EPA 756 mg, DHA 228 mg Phospholipid (PL) krill oil: EPA 150 mg, DHA 90 mg Triglyceride (TG) salmon oil: EPA 180 mg, DHA 220 mg For the duration of the study, participants were randomly assigned to consume one of the four products, in random order, for a 28‐day period, followed by a 4‐week washout period. This process continued until each subject had consumed each product. Blood samples before and after supplementation were quantified for fatty acid analysis by gas chromatography flame ionization, and statistically analysed using ANOVA for repeated measures. At the prescribed dosage, rTG was statistically superior to all three comparators in the bioavailability of EPA+DHA. Risk reduction in several elements of cardiovascular disease was achieved to a greater extent by rTG than by any other supplement. PL and TG were relatively unsuccessful in this aspect of the study. For the general population, the type and dose of omega‐3 supplements may be immaterial. However, the type and dose of omega‐3 supplementation may be important for those interested in reducing their risk of cardiovascular disease.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".