Maintenance of remission in inflammatory bowel disease using omega-3 fatty acids (fish oil): A systematic review and meta-analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective was to systematically review the efficacy and safety of n-3 (omega-3 fatty acids, fish oil) for maintaining remission in Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). Electronic databases were searched systematically for randomized controlled trials of n-3 for maintenance of remission in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Studies of patients of any age group who were in remission at the time of recruitment and were followed for at least 6 months were included. The primary outcome was relapse rate at the end of the follow-up period. Nine studies were eligible for inclusion; six studies of CD (n = 1039) and three of UC (n = 138). There was a statistically significant benefit for n-3 in CD (relative risk [RR] 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61-0.98); however, the studies were heterogeneous (I(2) = 58%). The absolute risk reduction was -0.14 (95% CI: -0.25 to -0.02). Opinions may vary on whether this is a clinically significant effect. Two well-done studies with a larger sample size reported no benefit. A sensitivity analysis excluding a small pediatric study resulted in the pooled RR being no longer statistically significant. A funnel plot analysis suggested publication bias for the smaller studies. For UC, there was no difference in the relapse rate between the n-3 and control groups (RR 1.02; 95% CI: 0.51-2.03). The pooled analysis showed a higher rate of diarrhea (RR 1.36; 95% CI: 1.01-1.84) and symptoms of the upper gastrointestinal tract (RR 1.96; 95% CI: 1.37-2.80) in the n-3 treatment group. There are insufficient data to recommend the use of omega 3 fatty acids for maintenance of remission in CD and UC.
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 | 0.014 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".