EPA and DHA Status of South Asian and White Canadians Living in the National Capital Region of Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To minimize the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), most dietary guidelines have recommended consuming 500 mg/day of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) + docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) or two servings of oily fish/week. The sum of percent EPA and DHA in red blood cell (RBC) total fatty acids-termed the omega-3 index-has been proposed as a biomarker for assessing the risk of death from CVD. The omega-3 indices of ≤4, >4 to <8 and ≥8 % have been proposed to be associated with high, intermediate and low CVD risks, respectively. In this study, we determined the EPA + DHA intake level and the omega-3 index of South Asian Canadians (SAC; n = 308) and white Canadians (WC; n = 341) age 20-79 years living in the National Capital Region of Canada. The mean EPA + DHA intake levels were 569 ± 571 mg/day for SAC and 684 ± 865 mg/day for WC and 46 % of SAC and 43 % of WC met the recommended EPA + DHA intake level of 500 mg/day. The mean omega-3 indices were 6.6 and 5.9 % for SAC and WC respectively. The suggested cardio-protective target level for the omega-3 index of ≥8 % was observed only in 19.8 % of SAC and in 9.4 % of WC subjects. The majority of the participants (74.4 % of SAC and 82.7 % of WC) were in the >4 to <8 % range. These results suggest that although study participants' dietary intake of EPA + DHA is adequate, this intake was not sufficient to provide an omega-3 index that is considered cardio-protective.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".