Omega-3 Supplementation for the Prevention of Cognitive Decline in Older Adults: Does It Depend on Homocysteine Levels?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent evidence point towards an interaction between omega-3 (n-3) polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) and plasma homocysteine (Hcy). OBJECTIVES: This study tested the hypothesis that effects of red blood cell n-3 PUFA are modified according to baseline plasma Hcy in the large Mulit-domain Alzheimer Prevention Trial (MAPT) throughout the 3-years of treatment with an additional 2 years of observational follow-up. DESIGN: Experimental study. PARTICIPANTS: From the 1680 participants that were randomized in the four groups of the MAPT study (two of which received n-3 PUFA, the other two without n-3 PUFA), 782 were selected because they had baseline data on both Hcy and n-3 PUFA. MEASUREMENTS: Cognitive performance was measured with a broad set of cognitive tests including free and total recall of the cued selective reminding test, digit symbol substitution test, category naming test and Trail-making tests (TMT-A and B) and Clinical dementia rating scale. RESULTS: We found a significant association between TMT-A and red blood cell n-3 PUFA levels in participants with Hcy values ≤16.8 µMol/L after adjustments at baseline (Estimate: -1.3, 95% CI: -2.3; -0.3, p=0.01). Additionally, participants with high Hcy values had a significant worsening after adjustments in TMT-B after a 5-year n-3 PUFA supplementation, compared to low levels of Hcy (Mean difference: 34.8, 95% CI: 7.8;61.7). CONCLUSION: This study shows that Hcy levels could modify the association between red blood cell n-3 PUFA and executive function. People with high Hcy may benefit less from a n-3 PUFA supplementation to prevent cognitive decline.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".