Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid supplementation during the pre and post-natal period: A meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized and semi-randomized controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Long chain omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (n-3 PUFA), such as docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) are widely considered beneficial for infant health and development. The aim of this meta-analysis was to summarize the evidence related to the clinical outcomes of long chain n-3 PUFA supplementation maternally and in fortified formula/taken directly. Additionally, we investigate if the addition of arachidonic acid (AA) alters the effects caused by n-3 PUFA supplements. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE (1974 to June 2015) CINAHL (1990 to June 2015), PubMed (1966–2015), Web of Science (1864–2015), MEDLINE (1974 to June 2015), and hand searches for randomized and semi-randomized controlled trials on term infants evaluating the effects of long chain n-3 PUFA supplementation taken maternally and in milk based formula or directly. We identified 39 formula and 39 breastmilk studies on the clinical outcomes of long chain n-3 PUFA supplementation, with or without AA, on infant immunity and development. Of these studies, 32 formula and 37 breastmilk studies were deemed appropriate resulting in a total of 2443 formula fed infants and 4553 breastfed infants exposed to n-3 PUFA supplementation. This meta-analysis shows that n-3 PUFA supplementation in infants delivered either maternally or in formula/directly, does not improve visual acuity, language development, or cognition. However, some aspects of growth, motor development, behavior and cardiovascular health are differentially altered in the summary effects of certain studies with the more desired effect occurring often in breastfed infants compared to formula fed infants. Moreover, this meta-analysis shows that n-3 PUFA supplements affects infant immune development and reduces pro-inflammatory responses in the supplemented breastfed and fortified formula fed/directly supplemented infants. Overall, the evidence does not support the continued supplementation of infant formula with long chain n-3 PUFA considering the negative impact on the developing immune responses.
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 | 0.018 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.041 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".