MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964899513 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0b013e318218669d

A phase II randomized placebo-controlled trial of omega-3 fatty acids for the treatment of acute lung injury*

2011· article· en· W1964899513 on OpenAlexaff
Renee D. Stapleton, Thomas R. Martin, Noel S. Weiss, Joseph J. Crowley, Stephanie Gundel, Avery B. Nathens, Saadia Akhtar, John Ruzinski, Ellen Caldwell, J. Randall Curtis, Daren K. Heyland, Timothy R. Watkins, Polly E. Parsons, Julie Martin, Mark M. Wurfel, Teal S. Hallstrand, Kathryn A. Sims, Margaret J. Neff

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFatty Acid Research and Health
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Center for Research ResourcesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsMedicineFish oilBronchoalveolar lavageEicosapentaenoic acidPlaceboEnteral administrationGastroenterologyRandomized controlled trialClinical endpointInternal medicineIntensive care unitLungAnesthesiaSurgeryFatty acidPolyunsaturated fatty acidParenteral nutritionPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Administration of eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexanoic acid, omega-3 fatty acids in fish oil, has been associated with improved patient outcomes in acute lung injury when studied in a commercial enteral formula. However, fish oil has not been tested independently in acute lung injury. We therefore sought to determine whether enteral fish oil alone would reduce pulmonary and systemic inflammation in patients with acute lung injury. DESIGN: Phase II randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Five North American medical centers. PATIENTS: Mechanically ventilated patients with acute lung injury ≥18 yrs of age. INTERVENTIONS: Subjects were randomized to receive enteral fish oil (9.75 g eicosapentaenoic acid and 6.75 g docosahexanoic acid daily) or saline placebo for up to 14 days. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Bronchoalveolar lavage fluid and blood were collected at baseline (day 0), day 4 ± 1, and day 8 ± 1. The primary end point was bronchoalveolar lavage fluid interleukin-8 levels. Forty-one participants received fish oil and 49 received placebo. Enteral fish oil administration was associated with increased serum eicosapentaenoic acid concentration (p < .0001). However, there was no significant difference in the change in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid interleukin-8 from baseline to day 4 (p = .37) or day 8 (p = .55) between treatment arms. There were no appreciable improvements in other bronchoalveolar lavage fluid or plasma biomarkers in the fish oil group compared with the control group. Similarly, organ failure score, ventilator-free days, intensive care unit-free days, and 60-day mortality did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Fish oil did not reduce biomarkers of pulmonary or systemic inflammation in patients with acute lung injury, and the results do not support the conduct of a larger clinical trial in this population with this agent. This experimental approach is feasible for proof-of-concept studies evaluating new treatments for acute lung injury.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.362 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations174
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicFatty Acid Research and HealthFrench-language works237,207