Is docosahexaenoic acid synthesis from α-linolenic acid sufficient to supply the adult brain?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) is important for brain function, and can be obtained directly from the diet or synthesized in the body from α-linolenic acid (ALA). Debate exists as to whether DHA synthesized from ALA can provide sufficient DHA for the adult brain, as measures of DHA synthesis from ingested ALA are typically <1% of the oral ALA dose. However, the primary fate of orally administered ALA is β-oxidation and long-term storage in adipose tissue, suggesting that DHA synthesis measures involving oral ALA tracer ingestion may underestimate total DHA synthesis. There is also evidence that DHA synthesized from ALA can meet brain DHA requirements, as animals fed ALA-only diets have brain DHA concentrations similar to DHA-fed animals, and the brain DHA requirement is estimated to be only 2.4-3.8 mg/day in humans. This review summarizes evidence that DHA synthesis from ALA can provide sufficient DHA for the adult brain by examining work in humans and animals involving estimates of DHA synthesis and brain DHA requirements. Also, an update on methods to measure DHA synthesis in humans is presented highlighting a novel approach involving steady-state infusion of stable isotope-labeled ALA that bypasses several limitations of oral tracer ingestion. It is shown that this method produces estimates of DHA synthesis that are at least 3-fold higher than brain uptake rates in rats.
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.
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 | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.005 |
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 it