Comparative bioavailability of omega‐3 fatty acids from four different omega‐3 supplements (272.6)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This was an open‐label cross‐over study. Thirty‐five healthy subjects were randomized to consume one of four products for four weeks, followed by a four‐week washout. The four products and daily doses (as recommended on the product labels) were: Nordic Naturals ProOmega® Concentrated Triglyceride fish oil: EPA of 650 mg, DHA of 450 mg Minami MorEPA® Platinum Ethyl Ester fish oil: EPA of 756 mg, DHA of 228 mg Source Naturals ArcticPure® Phospholipid krill oil: EPA of 150 mg, DHA of 90 mg New Chapter Wholemega® Triglyceride (TG) salmon oil: EPA of 180 mg, DHA of 220 mg This schedule continued until participants had consumed each product for four weeks, in random order. Blood samples before and after supplementation were quantified for whole blood fatty acids by gas chromatography flame ionization, followed by statistical analyses using ANOVA for repeated measures. At the prescribed daily dose, concentrated TG fish oil was statistically superior to all of its comparators in the bioavailability of EPA+DHA, and of DHA alone. Its EPA percentage increase was more than four times that of krill oil and TG salmon oil. At an extrapolated dose of 1,000 mg/day of omega‐3 fatty acid of interest, concentrated TG fish oil maintained its superiority over all three comparators for the whole blood EPA, DHA and EPA+DHA increases over 28 days of supplementation. For patients, type and dose of omega‐3 supplementation may be clinically important.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".