P4‐158: Omega‐3 Fatty Acids and Cognitive Performance in Coronary Artery Disease Patients: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized, Double‐Blind, Placebo‐Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This analysis investigated the efficacy of omega-3 fatty acid supplements for improving performance in verbal memory and other cognitive domains in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) participating in cardiac rehabilitation (CR). CAD patients aged 45-80 were recruited at entry to CR and randomized to receive either omega-3 fatty acid treatment (1.2g eicosapentaenoic acid, EPA + 0.6g docosahexaenoic acid, DHA) or placebo daily for 12 weeks. Cognitive performance was measured using the National Institutes of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and Canadian Stroke Network (NINDS-CSN) recommended 30-minute battery for vascular cognitive impairment. The difference in verbal memory performance between treatment groups over 12 weeks was analyzed. In 92 CAD patients (age=61.7±8.7, 69% male, 43% depressed, n=45 omega-3 fatty acid, n=47 placebo) omega-3 fatty acid treatment did not increase verbal memory performance overall (F1,91=0.42, p=.52) or any other cognitive outcome compared to placebo. Attention and processing speed, executive function and visuospatial memory improved significantly, but equally in both groups over 12 weeks. Omega-3 fatty acid treatment significantly increased verbal memory compared to placebo in a subgroup of non-depressed patients (F1,54=4.16, p=.04). While omega-3 fatty acid treatment in combination with CR had no significant cognitive benefits overall, it may improve verbal memory performance among non-depressed CAD patients. As verbal memory is an important predictor of compliance with CR, long-term cognitive health, and mortality, this finding may be clinically relevant. Future investigation of depression as a modifier of treatment efficacy may clarify these findings.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".