Fatty acid analysis of blood plasma of patients with alzheimer's disease, other types of dementia, and cognitive impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fatty acid differences, including docosahexaenoic acid (DHA; 22:6n-3) have been shown in the brains of Alzheimer's patients (AD) as compared with normal age-matched individuals. Furthermore, low serum DHA is a significant risk factor for the development of AD. The relative concentration of DHA and other fatty acids, however, in the plasma of AD patients compared with patients with other kinds of dementias (other dementias; OD), patients who are cognitively impaired but nondemented (CIND), or normal patients is not known. In this study we analyzed the total phospholipid, phosphatidylcholine (PC), phosphatidylethanolamine (PE), and lysophosphatidylcholine (lysoPC) fractions of plasma from patients diagnosed with AD, OD, or CIND and compared them with a group of elderly control subjects with normal cognitive functioning. Plasma phospholipid and PC levels of 20:5n-3, DHA, total n-3 fatty acids, and the n-3/n-6 ratio were lower in the AD, OD, and CIND groups. Plasma phospholipid 24:0 was lower in the AD, OD, and CIND groups as compared with the group of control patients, and total n-6 fatty acid levels were higher in the AD and CIND groups only. In the plasma PE fraction, levels of 20:5n-3, DHA, and the total n-3 fatty acid levels were significantly lower in the AD, OD, and CIND groups. DHA levels were lower in the lysoPC fraction of CIND individuals only. There were no other differences in the fatty acid compositions of the different phospholipid fractions. Therefore, in AD, OD, and CIND individuals, low levels of n-3 fatty acids in the plasma may be a risk factor for cognitive impairment and/or dementia. Interestingly, a decreased level of plasma DHA was not limited to the AD patients but appears to be common in cognitive impairment with aging.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".