Heterogeneity in Randomized Controlled Trials of Long Chain (Fish) Omega-3 Fatty Acids in Restenosis, Secondary Prevention and Ventricular Arrhythmias
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Randomized controlled trials of marine omega-3 fatty acid supplementation in relation to coronary heart disease (CHD) have inconsistent outcomes, yet public health messages are uniformly positive. Originally, fish were seen as a low saturated fat protein source, and later as a valuable source of omega-3 fatty acids. Early trials indicated that increased fish oil consumption prevented restenosis after coronary angioplasty. Later trials demonstrated that fish oils prolonged life post myocardial infarction (MI). Currently, the potential antiarrhythmic effects of fish derived omega-3 fatty acids are seen as the primary reason for cardiac benefits, as suggested by one trial with compliant subjects with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), and sudden death reduction in a post MI trial. However, the earlier benefits of EPA and DHA on restenosis have only been confirmed in a subgroup in a recent meta-analysis. Newer data indicate that fish oils may increase CHD events in men with angina. Furthermore, in two of three trials in patients with ICDs and a history of ventricular arrhythmias, fish oils showed no significant benefit or even increased the risk of appropriate ICD discharge. Certain groups of individuals may benefit from long-chain omega-3 fatty acids while others, including men with angina and some individuals with a history of ventricular arrhythmia, may not. Due to significant heterogeneity in the response to fish oils, further studies are required before making widespread recommendations for all groups to increase consumption of fish and fish oil.
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 | 0.158 | 0.317 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| 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".