Abstract 20243: Differential Uptake of Omega-3 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids in Trial Subjects Could Explain Variability of the Trials’ Outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: A relationship of regular fish consumption with lowered incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) has been appreciated for decades. However, preparations from fish oils, showed mixed results in recent meta-analyses and have raised some doubts on the efficacy of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (ω-3 PUFA) for management of CVD. Some of these reports suffer from inclusion of studies with ill-defined patient populations, varying PUFA doses, purity, and formulation, while others have patients on drug milieu or have employed placebo that could have undermine the trial outcome. Very few studies have determined ω-3 PUFA levels pre & post treatment. In this report, we are the first to describe heterogeneity of Omega 3 uptake among trial subjects that could have contributed to the inconsistencies of results. Methods: In VASCAZEN-REVEAL trials, 54 subjects with normal to high blood triglycerides levels (TG 90-500mg/dl) and with ω-3 PUFA deficiency (Omega-Score™, OS, blood levels of eicosapentaenoic (EPA)+docosahexaenoic (DHA) +docosapentaenoic acid (DPA) of <6.1% of total blood fatty acids) were provided 4g/day of 6:1 EPA/DHA formulation (>90% purity) for 8 weeks. Changes in the OS levels pre-and post treatment along with individual fatty acids including arachidonic (AA) were determined and desaturation enzymes activities were calculated. Results: Based upon post-treatment increases in the blood levels of OS, weak (WR), intermediate (IR) and strong (SR) responders were identified. Conclusion: This is the first report to show differential effect of Omega-3 on trial subjects and warrants caution in the interpretation of trial data without identifying the responders.
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 | 0.072 | 0.099 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".