Omega-6 to Omega-3 Fatty Acid Ratio in Patients with ADHD: A Meta-Analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids have been shown to be deficient in individuals with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder compared to controls (Hawkey & Nigg, 2014). Clinical trials of omega-3 and omega-6 supplements as treatment for ADHD have demonstrated minimal efficacy (Bloch & Qawasmi, 2011; Gillies, Sinn, Lad, Leach, & Ross, 2011; Hawkey & Nigg, 2014; Puri & Martins, 2014; Sonuga-Barke et al., 2013). Existing trials have analyzed omega-3 and omega-6 separately although the tissue ratio of these fatty acids (n6/n3) may be more important than absolute levels of either. The objective of this study was to determine the relationship between blood n6/n3 and arachidonic acid to eicosapentaenoic acid (AA/EPA), to ADHD symptoms. METHOD: A systematic literature review identified original articles measuring blood n6/n3 or AA/EPA ratio in children and youth with ADHD, compared to controls without ADHD. Three databases were searched. Blood n6/n3, and AA/EPA ratios were compared between individuals with ADHD and controls. Results were pooled across studies using quantitative synthesis. RESULTS: Five articles met inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. The pooled mean difference between patients with ADHD and controls was 1.97 (0.90-3.04) for n6/n3 (n=5 studies, I(2) 83%) and 8.25 (5.94-10.56) for AA/EPA (n=3 studies, I(2) 0%). CONCLUSIONS: Children and youth with ADHD have elevated ratios of both blood n6/n3 and AA/EPA fatty acids compared to controls. Thus an elevated n6/n3, and more specifically AA/EPA, ratio may represent the underlying disturbance in essential fatty acid levels in patients with ADHD. These findings have implications for the development of future interventions using essential fatty acids to treat ADHD, and for the use of these ratios as biomarkers for titrating and monitoring ADHD treatment with essential fatty acids.
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 | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.054 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".