Bibliographic record
Abstract
Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), in particular the marine-derived forms eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid, have been touted as natural, multipotent treatments for a wide variety of disease conditions. Interest in using these PUFA (found in marine algae and fatty cold water fish such as salmon, mackerel and tuna) to prevent and treat cardiovascular disease (CVD) has grown exponentially since it was first proposed in the 1970s. A series of studies published during that decade showed that Greenland ‘Eskimos’, despite subsisting on a diet containing a great deal of whale, seal and fish fat, had virtually no incidence of CVD. This led to the suggestion that the low CVD rates among Eskimos were the result of high PUFA intake and their putative antiatherogenic/antithrombotic effects.1 Since then, PUFA have been shown to have anti-inflammatory and antiplatelet properties, as well as the ability to lower blood pressure and triglycerides.1 Large studies carried out during the 1980s and 1990s in populations of patients with CVD and post-myocardial infarction (MI) showed that PUFA could also reduce mortality and possibly sudden death rates.1 Those studies were supported by basic science findings showing that PUFA can alter the electrophysiological properties of cardiac cells, perhaps by affecting membrane fluidity or ion channel function.2 There arose a perception that PUFA may be a sort of ‘antiarrhythmic drug’. Based on this evidence, the current American Heart Association guidelines recommend eating fish high in PUFA at least twice a week (http://www.heart.org). Over the past decade, the focus of research on PUFA has expanded also to include atrial arrhythmias. This was based on the hypothesis that mechanisms of arrhythmogenesis are similar between atria and ventricle, and therefore putative antiarrhythmic effects of PUFA would be as evident in …
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".