Effect of omega-3 fatty acids supplementation on adipokines: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Although a large body of literature reported the beneficial effects of omega-3 fatty acids (omega-3 FAs) consumption on adipokines levels, but recent findings from clinical trials are not univocal. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of omega-3 FAs supplements on adipokines.Methods We searched Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane Library from inception to August 2020 without any particular language limitations. Outcomes were summarized as standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) estimated from Hedge's g and random effects modeling.Results Fifty-two trials involving 4,568 participants were included. Omega-3 FAs intake was associated with a significant increase in plasma adiponectin levels (n = 43; 3,434 participants; SMD: 0.21, 95% CI: 0.04, 0.37; p = 0.01; I2= 80.14%). This meta-analysis indicates that supplementing participants with omega-3 fatty acids more than 2000 mg daily and more than 10 weeks resulted in a significant and more favorable improvement in plasma adiponectin levels. However, omega-3 FAs intake had no significant effect on leptin levels (SMD: −0.02, 95% CI: −0.20, 0.17, I2= 54.13%).Conclusion The evidence supports a beneficial effect of omega-3 FAs intake on serum adiponectin levels but does not appear to impact on leptin concentrations. Larger well-designed RCTs are still required to evaluate the effect of omega-3 FAs on leptin in specific diseases.
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 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 | 0.103 | 0.182 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.055 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".