Pruritus‐reducing effects of omega‐3 fatty acids in hemodialysis patients: A cross‐over randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Chronic kidney disease-associated pruritus is a common complication in patients with end-stage renal disease. In this study, we have explored the outcome of omega-3 supplementary intake for the treatment of this symptom. METHODS: This double-blinded, randomized, crossover study was conducted in two dialysis centers in which 40 hemodialysis patients suffering from pruritus were randomly assigned into two groups (Group A and Group B). Patients in Group A consumed omega-3 capsules for 4 weeks and after a washout period (6 weeks), they took placebo for another 4 weeks. The same was performed in Group B but in the reverse order. Pruritus score was determined at the baseline, Week 4, 10, and 14. Serum levels of prostaglandin E2 were also recorded at the baseline and Week 4. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant reduction of pruritus score in patients who took the omega-3 fatty acid supplement. The mean pruritus score decreased significantly in both first (-3.41 ± 2.62, p < 0.001) and second (-1.00 ± 1.84, p = 0.04) treatment period after omega-3 treatment; but no significant mean pruritus score difference in placebo group after both intervention periods was observed. The decrease in prostaglandin E2 amount was not statistically significant in the intervention (omega-3) group compared to the placebo group (p = 0.204). DISCUSSION: Our observations indicate that omega-3 fatty acids (3 grams per day) have decreasing effects on pruritus. Also, reduction in prostaglandin E2 levels in the omega-3 group did not differ from the changes in the placebo group.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".