PUFA ω-3 and ω-6 biomarkers and sleep: a pooled analysis of cohort studies on behalf of the Fatty Acids and Outcomes Research Consortium (FORCE)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: n-3 and n-6 PUFAs have physiologic roles in sleep processes, but little is known regarding circulating n-3 and n-6 PUFA and sleep parameters. OBJECTIVES: We sought to assess associations between biomarkers of n-3 and n-6 PUFA intake with self-reported sleep duration and difficulty falling sleeping in the Fatty Acids and Outcome Research Consortium. METHODS: Harmonized, de novo, individual-level analyses were performed and pooled across 12 cohorts. Participants were 35-96 y old and from 5 nations. Circulating measures included α-linolenic acid (ALA), EPA, docosapentaenoic acid (DPA), DHA, EPA + DPA + DHA, linoleic acid, and arachidonic acid. Sleep duration (10 cohorts, n = 18,791) was categorized as short (≤6 h), 7-8 h (reference), or long (≥9 h). Difficulty falling asleep (8 cohorts, n = 12,500) was categorized as yes or no. Associations between PUFAs, sleep duration, and difficulty falling sleeping were assessed by cross-sectional multinomial logistic regression using standardized protocols and covariates. Cohort-specific multivariable-adjusted ORs per quintile of PUFAs were pooled with inverse-variance weighted meta-analysis. RESULTS: In pooled analysis adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics and health status, participants with higher very long-chain n-3 PUFAs were less likely to have long sleep duration. In the top compared with the bottom quintiles, the multivariable-adjusted ORs (95% CIs) for long sleep were 0.78 (95% CI: 0.65, 0.95) for DHA and 0.76 (95% CI: 0.63, 0.93) for EPA + DPA + DHA. Significant associations for ALA and n-6 PUFA with short sleep duration or difficulty falling sleeping were not identified. CONCLUSIONS: Participants with higher concentrations of very long-chain n-3 PUFAs were less likely to have long sleep duration. While objective biomarkers reduce recall bias and misclassification, the cross-sectional design limits assessment of the temporal nature of this relation. These novel findings across 12 cohorts highlight the need for experimental and biological assessments of very long-chain n-3 PUFAs and sleep duration.
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 | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".