The effect of seafood consumption on the memory of post-secondary students in B.C.
Bibliographic record
Abstract

 Background and Purpose: Seafood makes up a significant portion of the diets of people around the world. Especially fatty fish such as salmon and herring, seafood items contain numerous nutritional benefits including omega-3 fatty acids which studies have shown aid in cognition and memory. However, due to natural and anthropogenic sources of pollution, contaminants such as mercury which studies suggest decreases cognitive functioning if consumed in excess bioaccumulate in marine life including various fish and shellfish species. The purpose of this study was to categorize participants into either the “fish” group (more fish than shellfish consumed) or the “same” group (either more shellfish than fish consumed or equal amounts of fish and shellfish consumed) via a seafood frequency questionnaire, and to administer a memory test to the participants to determine whether there is a significant difference in mean memory test scores between the groups. Methods: 31 participants were randomly selected at BCIT to participate in the study. Participation was voluntary and participants were given written and oral instructions on how to complete both the seafood frequency questionnaire and memory test. Memory test scores were based on the length of the longest digit sequence that the participant was able to recite upon hearing the examiner list the sequence. The highest possible score was a 10, while the lowest possible score was a 1. Results: The mean memory test scores of the groups, “fish” (more fish than shellfish consumed) and “same” (either more shellfish than fish consumed or equal amounts of fish and shellfish consumed), were 5.83 and 5.92, respectively. The median memory test scores of the groups, “fish” and ”same”, were both equal to 6. The standard deviations of the groups, “fish” and “same”, were 1.2004901 and 0.9540736, respectively. The ranges of the groups, “fish” and “same”, were 4 (minimum) to 8 (maximum) and 5 (minimum) to 8 (maximum). From the non-parametric Wilcoxon Rank sum test, the P-value was found to be >0.05 at α = 0.05. Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that diets relatively high in fish are neither positively nor negatively correlated with memory. However, the limitations of this study in combination with the various studies that contradict this study’s findings illustrate the need for further research.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".