Flax and fish oil supplementation in fire‐paramedics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death in North America. Recent interest in the prevention of CVD has focused on the use of omega‐3 fatty acids contained in flax oil and fish oil. We are conducting a 12 week pilot study (n = 60 adult subjects) to determine the optimal daily doses to reduce markers of inflammation in a group of fire‐paramedics who are at risk for heart disease by profession. The groups (n=10) are: Flax group : flax oil capsules (doses 1.2, 2.4, or 3.6 g/day); Fish oil group : fish oil capsules (doses 0.6 or 1.2 g/day); Placebo group : safflower oil (1 g/day). Baseline physicals were completed and blood is collected bi‐weekly. Results at study entry were (mean (SD): age 40 (10); wt 92 (14) kg; ht 177 (12) cm; BP 122/79 (20/14); pulse 61 (18). C‐reactive protein 1760 (2460) ng/mL 7 subjects elevated; tumor necrosis factor 2.1 (2.9) 2 elevated; sVCAM 518 (99) all in normal range; Interleukin 1 beta 0.1 (0.4) all normal. Baseline lipid data (mmol/L): TC 4 (0.8); HDL 1.3 (0.4); LDL 2.2 (0.8); TG 2.3 (1.6); TC/HDL ratio 3.5 (2.2). These subjects provide a heterogeneous group to assess the effects of omega‐3 supplementation. Supported by the Flax Council of Canada and Canadian Institutes of Health Research
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; 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".