The effect of acute fish-oil supplementation on endothelial function and arterial stiffness following a high-fat meal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined whether a commercially available fish-oil supplement offers protection from the acute effects of a high-fat meal (HFM) on endothelial function and arterial stiffness. An HFM causes acute impairments in endothelial function, whereas the omega-3 fatty acids eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) have a variety of cardioprotective effects. However, little is known about the efficacy of moderate fish-oil supplementation on the endothelial dysfunction induced by an HFM. Endothelial function (brachial artery flow-mediated dilation (FMD)), forearm blood flow (FBF), total hyperemia, central and peripheral blood pressure, and central artery stiffness were assessed in 20 healthy men (n = 10) and women (n = 10) at rest and 4 h after an HFM supplemented with either placebo or approximately 1 g EPA and DHA. Brachial artery FMD normalized for shear rate was significantly impaired (p = 0.033) following the HFM with placebo but remained unchanged compared with baseline following the HFM with the fish-oil supplement (p = 0.039; condition x time interaction). Resting FBF (p = 0.020) and total hyperemia (p = 0.014) were elevated following the HFM. All other vascular and hemodynamic measurements were unchanged in both trials. Commercially available fish-oil supplements taken with an HFM appear to preserve endothelial function following an HFM.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".