Developmental Outcomes at 24 Months of Age in Toddlers Supplemented with Arachidonic Acid and Docosahexaenoic Acid: Results of a Double Blind Randomized, Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little is known about arachidonic acid (ARA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) requirements in toddlers. A longitudinal, double blind, controlled trial in toddlers (n = 133) age 13.4 ± 0.9 months (mean ± standard deviation), randomized to receive a DHA (200 mg/day) and ARA (200 mg/day) supplement (supplement) or a corn oil supplement (control) until age 24 months determined effects on neurodevelopment. We found no effect of the supplement on the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development 3rd Edition (Bayley-III) cognitive and language composites and Beery–Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual–Motor Integration (Beery VMI) at age 24 months. Supplemented toddlers had higher RBC phosphatidylcholine (PC), phosphatidylethanolamine (PE), and plasma DHA and ARA compared to placebo toddlers at age 24 months. A positive relationship between RBC PE ARA and Bayley III Cognitive composite (4.55 (0.21–9.00), B (95% CI), p = 0.045) in supplemented boys, but not in control boys, was observed in models adjusted for baseline fatty acid, maternal non-verbal intelligence, and BMI z-score at age 24 months. A similar positive relationship between RBC PE ARA and Bayley III Language composite was observed for supplemented boys (11.52 (5.10–17.94), p < 0.001) and girls (11.19 (4.69–17.68), p = 0.001). These findings suggest that increasing the ARA status in toddlers is associated with better neurodevelopment at age 24 months.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".