Diet-induced changes in iron and <i>n</i>-3 fatty acid status and associations with cognitive performance in 8–11-year-old Danish children: secondary analyses of the Optimal Well-Being, Development and Health for Danish Children through a Healthy New Nordic Diet School Meal Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fe and n-3 long-chain PUFA (n-3 LCPUFA) have both been associated with cognition, but evidence remains inconclusive in well-nourished school-aged children. In the Optimal Well-Being, Development and Health for Danish Children through a Healthy New Nordic Diet (OPUS) School Meal Study, the 3-month intervention increased reading performance, inattention, impulsivity and dietary intake of fish and Fe. This study investigated whether the intervention influenced n-3 LCPUFA and Fe status and, if so, explored how these changes correlated with the changes in cognitive performance. The study was a cluster-randomised cross-over trial comparing school meals with packed lunch (control). At baseline and after each treatment, we measured serum ferritin, whole-blood n-3 LCPUFA and Hb, and performance in reading, mathematics and d2-test of attention. Data were analysed using mixed models (n 726) and principal component analysis of test performances (n 644), which showed two main patterns: 'school performance' and 'reading comprehension'. The latter indicated that children with good reading comprehension were also more inattentive and impulsive (i.e. higher d2-test error%). The intervention improved 'school performance' (P=0·015), 'reading comprehension' (P=0·043) and EPA+DHA status 0·21 (95% CI 0·15, 0·27) w/w % (P<0·001), but it did not affect serum ferritin or Hb. At baseline, having small Fe stores was associated with poorer 'school performance' in girls, but with better 'reading comprehension' in both boys and girls. Both baseline EPA+DHA status and the intervention-induced increase in EPA+DHA status was positively associated with 'school performance', suggesting that n-3 LCPUFA could potentially explain approximately 20 % of the intervention effect. These exploratory associations indicate that increased fish intake might explain some of the increase in reading performance and inattention in the study.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".