Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid supplementation in the prevention of cardiovascular disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) have purported protective cardiovascular (CV) effects. We sought to assess the evidence available for the use of omega-3 PUFAs for the prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD). METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted using MEDLINE and EMBASE from 1999 to 2015. Placebo-controlled, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled over 1000 patients with follow-up greater than 1 year and meta-analyses of RCTs were included. RESULTS: Eight RCTs and 2 meta-analyses were included. In patients with preexisting CVD, only 1 of 5 included RCTs demonstrated a reduction in CV events with omega-3 PUFAs; however, the effect size was minimal, and the study was limited by an open-label design and lack of placebo control. Two meta-analyses concluded omega-3 PUFAs do not reduce CV events in addition to standard, evidence-based therapy in patients after myocardial infarction. Of the 3 predominantly primary prevention RCTs, only 1 demonstrated a minor reduction in major coronary events; however, it was also an open-label study. Furthermore, the safety of omega-3 PUFAs should be considered. While data from RCTs have not demonstrated serious safety concerns, omega-3 PUFAs can increase the risk of bleeding and may interact with other medications that affect hemostasis, such as antiplatelet agents and warfarin. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: There is currently a lack of evidence to support the routine use of omega-3 PUFAs in the primary and secondary prevention of CVD. Pharmacists are ideally situated to engage patients in the discussion of the lack of benefit and possible risk of omega-3 PUFA supplements.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".