Fatty Acid Supplementation and Socioemotional Outcomes: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Children born preterm experience socioemotional difficulties, including increased risk of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). In this secondary analysis, we tested the effect of combined docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and arachidonic acid (AA) supplementation during toddlerhood on caregiver-reported socioemotional outcomes of children born preterm. We hypothesized that children randomly assigned to DHA + AA would display better socioemotional outcomes compared with those randomly assigned to a placebo. METHODS: = 377) were 10 to 16 months at enrollment, born at <35 weeks' gestation, and assigned to 180 days of daily 200-mg DHA + 200-mg AA supplementation or a placebo (400 mg corn oil). Caregivers completed the Brief Infant-Toddler Social and Emotional Assessment and the Pervasive Developmental Disorders Screening Test-II, Stage 2 at the end of the trial. Liner mixed models and log-binomial regression compared socioemotional outcomes between the DHA + AA and placebo groups. RESULTS: ≤ 0.15) and not statistically significant. Children randomly assigned to DHA + AA had a decreased risk of scoring at-risk for ASD on the Pervasive Developmental Disorders Screening Test-II, Stage 2 (21% vs 32%; risk ratio = 0.66 [95% confidence interval: 0.45 to 0.97]; risk difference = -0.11 [95% confidence interval: -0.21 to -0.01]) compared with children randomly assigned to a placebo. CONCLUSIONS: No evidence of benefit of DHA + AA supplementation on caregiver-reported outcomes of broad socioemotional development was observed. Supplementation resulted in decreased risk of clinical concern for ASD. Further exploration in larger samples of preterm children and continued follow-up of children who received DHA + AA supplementation as they approach school age is warranted.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".