Omega‐3 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids Intake and Blood Pressure: A Dose‐Response Meta‐Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Current evidence might support the use of omega-3 fatty acids (preferably docosahexaenoic acid and eicosapentaenoic acid) for lowering blood pressure (BP), but the strength and shape of the dose-response relationship remains unclear. Methods and Results This study included randomized controlled trials published before May 7, 2021, that involved participants aged ≥18 years, and examined an association between omega-3 fatty acids (docosahexaenoic acid, eicosapentaenoic acid, or both) and BP. A random-effects 1-stage cubic spline regression model was used to predict the average dose-response association between daily omega-3 fatty acid intake and changes in BP. We also conducted stratified analyses to examine differences by prespecified subgroups. Seventy-one trials were included, involving 4973 individuals with a combined docosahexaenoic acid+eicosapentaenoic acid dose of 2.8 g/d (interquartile range, 1.3 g/d to 3.6 g/d). A nonlinear association was found overall or in most subgroups, depicted as J-shaped dose-response curves. The optimal intake in both systolic BP and diastolic BP reductions (mm Hg) were obtained by moderate doses between 2 g/d (systolic BP, -2.61 [95% CI, -3.57 to -1.65]; diastolic BP, -1.64 [95% CI, -2.29 to -0.99]) and 3 g/d (systolic BP, -2.61 [95% CI, -3.52 to -1.69]; diastolic BP, -1.80 [95% CI, -2.38 to -1.23]). Subgroup studies revealed stronger and approximately linear dose-response relations among hypertensive, hyperlipidemic, and older populations. Conclusions This dose-response meta-analysis demonstrates that the optimal combined intake of omega-3 fatty acids for BP lowering is likely between 2 g/d and 3 g/d. Doses of omega-3 fatty acid intake above the recommended 3 g/d may be associated with additional benefits in lowering BP among groups at high risk for cardiovascular diseases.
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 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 | 0.077 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.035 | 0.018 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".