Cross-sectional study of the combined associations of dietary and supplemental eicosapentaenoic acid + docosahexaenoic acid on Omega-3 Index
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies have linked an Omega-3 Index (O3I), which measures eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) + docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in red blood cell membranes, of ≥8% with improved health. Previous studies found that the American Heart Association (AHA) recommendation of 1-2 seafood meals per week does not achieve an O3I ≥8% even with an EPA + DHA supplement; however, these studies did not assess the frequency or amount of supplemental intake. Among participants in a predominantly US and Canadian cohort with high nutrient supplement use, we hypothesized that those adhering to the AHA guidelines would not have an average O3I ≥8% but that those taking a daily supplement would. Fish consumption and EPA + DHA supplement use were reported by 1795 participants; 985 also completed a blood spot test for O3I. A majority (71%) consumed <2 servings per week of fatty fish, and 61% took an EPA + DHA supplement. The amount of EPA + DHA for 1 serving (based on the product label) significantly differed among the >400 supplement products (50-3570 mg). O3I was ≥8.0% in 19% of participants. Among non–supplement takers, 3% of those consuming 1 fish serving per week and 17% consuming ≥2 achieved an O3I ≥8.0%. Among those consuming ≥2 fish servings per week, only those also taking an average of 1100 mg/d of supplemental EPA + DHA had a median O3I ≥8.0%. Based on the relationship between supplemental EPA + DHA intake and O3I for non–fish eaters (R2 = 0.40, P < .0001), an average of ~1300 mg/d of EPA + DHA achieved an O3I of 8.0%. This study suggests that following the AHA guidelines does not produce an O3I ≥8% nor does taking 1 serving per day of most omega-3 supplements.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".