Linking low docosahexaenoic acid intake to Alzheimer's disease : caution recommended
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prospective cohort studies and animal models support the concept that low docosahexaenoic acid intake is implicated in the etiology or progression of Alzheimer’s disease. However, other studies crucial to this relationship are less encouraging. To date, the few trials using docosahexaenoic acid to treat declining cognition in the elderly have either been very small or, in the largest trial, the beneficial effect was mild and limited to a sub-group of patients. The supplements used in each of these clinical trials contained at least one polyunsaturated fatty acid other than docosahexaenoic acid, so the active ingredient remains unclear. One widely cited study reported markedly lower brain docosahexaenoic acid in Alzheimer’s disease but at least five other much less commonly cited reports have not corroborated this effect. There are numerous inconsistencies or confounders in the data and several challenges to overcome before definitively attributing a specific role to docosahexaenoic acid in the protection of c ognitive function in the elderly.
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 | 0.093 | 0.233 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".