Enhanced increase of omega-3 index in healthy individuals with response to 4-week n-3 fatty acid supplementation from krill oil versus fish oil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Due to structural differences, bioavailability of krill oil, a phospholipid based oil, could be higher than fish oil, a triglyceride-based oil, conferring properties that render it more effective than fish oil in increasing omega-3 index and thereby, reducing cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to assess the effects of krill oil compared with fish oil or a placebo control on plasma and red blood cell (RBC) fatty acid profile in healthy volunteers. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: Twenty four healthy volunteers were recruited for a double blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover trial. The study consisted of three treatment phases including krill or fish oil each providing 600 mg of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) or placebo control, corn oil in capsule form. Each treatment lasted 4 wk and was separated by 8 wk washout phases. RESULTS: Krill oil consumption increased plasma (p = 0.0043) and RBC (p = 0.0011) n-3 PUFA concentrations, including EPA and DHA, and reduced n-6:n-3 PUFA ratios (plasma: p = 0.0043, RBC: p = 0.0143) compared with fish oil consumption. Sum of EPA and DHA concentrations in RBC, the omega-3 index, was increased following krill oil supplementation compared with fish oil (p = 0.0143) and control (p < 0.0001). Serum triglycerides and HDL cholesterol concentrations did not change with any of the treatments. However, total and LDL cholesterol concentrations were increased following krill (TC: p = 0.0067, LDL: p = 0.0143) and fish oil supplementation (TC: p = 0.0028, LDL: p = 0.0143) compared with control. CONCLUSIONS: Consumption of krill oil was well tolerated with no adverse events. Results indicate that krill oil could be more effective than fish oil in increasing n-3 PUFA, reducing n-6:n-3 PUFA ratio, and improving the omega-3 index. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01323036.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".