Effect of a Novel Omega‐3 and Omega‐6 Fatty Acid Supplement on Dry Eye Disease: A 3‐month Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SIGNIFICANCE Supplementing diet with a novel combination of omega‐3 and omega‐6 fatty acids significantly improved symptoms in extremely symptomatic participants with dry eye disease (DED). PURPOSE This study aimed to determine the effect of daily intake of a novel combination of essential fatty acids on signs and symptoms of DED. METHODS Participants with moderate to severe DED were enrolled in a prospective, randomized, double‐masked parallel group study. Participants ingested either the treatment supplement containing omega‐3 and omega‐6 fatty acids (1200 mg eicosapentaenoic acid, 300 mg docosahexaenoic acid, 150 mg γ‐linoleic acid) or the placebo (coconut and olive oil) daily for 3 months. To determine compliance, Omega‐3 Index blood tests were conducted. At baseline and at 1 and 3 months, the following assessments were conducted: Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) questionnaire and Symptom Assessment Questionnaire in Dry Eye, noninvasive tear breakup time, tear meniscus height, tear osmolarity, ocular redness, surface staining, Schirmer test, and meibography. RESULTS Fifty participants (mean ± standard deviation baseline OSDI score, 52.2 ± 16.5) completed the study: 24 randomized to treatment and 26 randomized to placebo. Although there was an improvement in OSDI score at 3 months for both groups (treatment: −13.4 points, P =. 003; placebo: −7.8 points, P =. 02), participants with baseline OSDI scores >52 demonstrated an even larger significant improvement in symptoms with the treatment at 3 months compared with baseline (n = 13, −20.8 points, P =. 002). There were no significant changes in any of the ocular assessments at 1 or 3 months (all P >. 05). After 3 months, Omega‐3 Index increased by 34% in the treatment group (baseline, 5.3 ± 0.8; 3 months, 8.0 ± 2.1; P <. 001) and did not change in the placebo group (baseline, 4.8 ± 0.8; 3 months, 4.8 ± 0.6; P =. 95). CONCLUSIONS Supplementation with eicosapentaenoic acid, docosahexaenoic acid, and γ‐linoleic acid resulted in a significant and clinically meaningful improvement of dry eye symptoms in extremely symptomatic participants with DED (OSDI ≥52).
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".