Oxidation levels of North American over-the-counter<i>n</i>-3 (omega-3) supplements and the influence of supplement formulation and delivery form on evaluating oxidative safety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to evaluate the oxidation status of North American n-3 (omega-3) PUFA nutritional supplements commercially available in Canada and evaluate the influence of product formulation and delivery form on oxidative safety. A total of 171 North American over-the-counter n-3 PUFA nutritional supplements were analysed for oxidation safety. Primary and secondary oxidation and total oxidation (TOTOX) were determined using the American Oil Chemists' Society (AOCS) procedures. Comparisons between supplements' final forms, oil source and n-3 PUFA concentration quartiles, as measures of product formulations and delivery forms, were compared using ANOVA. Of the products successfully tested, 50 % exceeded the voluntary recommended levels for markers of oxidation. Another 18 % of products were approaching the limits with 1-3 years before expiration. Encapsulated products without flavour additives had significantly lower secondary and TOTOX levels than bulk oils and flavoured products (P < 0·05). Children's products had significantly higher primary, secondary and TOTOX levels compared with all other products (P < 0·05). Markers of oxidation did not differ between oil sources (P > 0·05), with the exception of krill oil products having higher secondary oxidation levels than plant-based products (P > 0·05). Markers of oxidation did not differ between n-3 PUFA supplement concentration quartiles. Consumers may be at risk of exposure to higher levels of oxidative products. New regulatory mandates need to be introduced to ensure that all n-3 PUFA products, used as nutritional supplements, regardless of their formulation or delivery form, can be tested for oxidative safety and compliance.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".