A comparison between the effects of flaxseed oil and fish oil supplementation on cardiovascular health in type 2 diabetic patients with coronary heart disease: A randomized, double‐blinded, placebo‐controlled trial
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared the effects of flaxseed and fish oil supplementation on cardiovascular risk parameters in diabetic patients with coronary heart disease. Participants were randomly allocated into three intervention groups to receive either 1,000 mg of omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil or 1,000 mg of omega-3 fatty acids from flaxseed oil or placebo (n = 30 each group) twice a day for 12 weeks. A significant reduction in insulin levels (.04) was observed following flaxseed oil and fish oil supplementation compared with the placebo. In addition, a significant reduction in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (.02) was seen after flaxseed oil supplementation compared with the placebo and a significant increase in total nitrite (.001) was seen after flaxseed oil and fish oil intake compared with placebo. Additionally, a significant increase in total antioxidant capacity (p < .001) after consuming flaxseed oil and fish oil compared with placebo and glutathione levels (.001) after consuming fish oil compared with flaxseed oil and placebo was observed. Overall, our study revealed the beneficial effects of flaxseed oil and fish oil supplementation on few metabolic profiles. This study suggests that the effect of flaxseed oil in reducing insulin and increasing total nitrite and total antioxidant capacity is similar to fish oil.
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it