Oily Fish and Omega-3s Across the Life Stages: A Focus on Intakes and Future Directions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There is a tendency to report oily fish intakes for adults collectively. This means that certain population groups tend to be overlooked. The purpose of the present article is to derive and evaluate oily fish and omega-3 intakes across the lifespan. Methods: A secondary analysis of the UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey (years 2008-2016) was undertaken. Data from n=2,949 participants ≥4 years was analysed. Alongside this, data was extracted from surveys published within the last 5-years reporting omega-3 intakes. Results: Overall, only a quarter (25.2%) of the UK population are oily fish consumers. Amongst those eating oily fish only 7.3% of children, 12.8% of teenagers and 15.6% of young adults (20-29 years) met oily fish recommendations. Mean intakes of oily fish ranged between 3.4 and 19.1g/day. Females aged 30-39 years and 60-69 years had significantly lower daily oily fish intakes than males (P=0.05 and P=0.049) although their intakes were higher than men in their fifties (P=0.048). Between 2008 and 2016 oily fish intakes have remained relatively stable although a significant decline was seen amongst those aged 50-59 years (P=0.048). Survey data (n=10 publications) showed that EPA and DHA intakes were consistently lower than guidelines, with children, teenagers, females and pregnant women having some of the largest dietary gaps. Conclusions: Younger generations, women of childbearing age and pregnant mothers appear to be at particular risk of oily fish and omega-3 shortfalls. Declining EPA and DHA profiles of farmed fish and plant-based food movements are only likely to exacerbate already inadequate intakes. Urgent public health campaigns are needed to improve UK intakes, which should include a combined approach of dietary and supplemental sources.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".