Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial of Omega-3 as Supplemental Treatment in Schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Recent studies found omega-3 fatty acid deficiency in brain cell membranes of schizophrenic patients. Conventional antipsychotics have many adverse reactions. Safety, availability and low price made omega-3 as a potential supplement for treatment of these patients. This study investigated the efficacy of omega-3 fatty acid as add-on treatment in schizophrenia. MATERIALS & METHODS: A randomized, double blind, placebo controlled fixed-dose, add-on clinical trial conducted over 8 weeks. 60 patients with documented schizophrenia randomly divided into two groups: omega-3(1000 mg/day) (n=30) and placebo (n=30). Patients received omega-3 or placebo in addition to their standard antipsychotic treatment. Patient follow up was done using Positive and Negative syndrome Scale (PANSS). Data analyzed using SPSS software v.20. RESULTS: At the end of 8 weeks treatment, PANSS score decreased significantly in both groups (p<0.05) in comparison to baseline. Efficacy of omega-3 in decreasing general psychopathologic and total scores was significant in comparison to placebo group from 4 and 6 weeks after onset of treatment, respectively (p<0.05). Totally, omega-3 supplement therapy efficacy in comparison to sole conventional antipsychotics was 0.86 which was not significant (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: we found that supplemental omega-3 might increase efficacy of conventional antipsychotics in decreasing symptoms of schizophrenia. Low price, rare adverse reactions and availability of omega-3 made this substance a potential supplement in improved treatment of schizophrenia
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".