A Meta-Analytic Review of Polyunsaturated Fatty Acid Compositions in Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the levels of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), arachidonic acid (AA), total n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), and total n-6 PUFAs were changed in patients with dementia or predementia syndrome. DATA SOURCES: PubMed was searched for studies from first date available to July 2011 using the following search terms: (dementia OR cognitive impairment OR mild cognitive impairment) AND (omega-3 OR omega-6 OR polyunsaturated fatty acid OR docosahexaenoic acid OR DHA OR eicosapentaenoic acid OR EPA). The search was limited to literature in English and to human studies. The references of relevant articles and review articles were searched for citations not indexed in PubMed. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were included if they measured levels of EPA, DHA, AA, total n-3 PUFAs, or total n-6 PUFAs from peripheral blood tissues in subjects with cognitive deficits (dementia or predementia syndrome) and elderly controls and were published in peer-reviewed journals. The search yielded 10 articles including 2,280 subjects. DATA EXTRACTION: The study design, sample size, PUFA levels for both patients and control subjects, sampling tissue, diagnoses and diagnostic criteria for cognitive deficits, and distribution of mean age and gender of included subjects were extracted for each study. RESULTS: In a random-effects model, we found that the levels of EPA (effect size [ES] = -0.47, P < .0001), DHA (ES = -0.33, P = .017), and total n-3 PUFAs (ES = -0.46, P = .001) were decreased in patients with dementia. However, the levels of EPA (ES = -0.44, P = .002), but not DHA or other PUFAs, were significantly lower in patients with predementia syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the important role of n-3 PUFAs in the pathophysiology of dementia. In addition, the analyses of predementia studies indicate that EPA might be not only a disease-state marker but also a risk factor for cognitive impairment.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".