Associations of erythrocyte omega‐3 fatty acids with cognition, brain imaging and biomarkers in the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The association between ω‐3 polyunsaturated fatty acids and cognition, brain imaging and biomarkers is still not fully established. We aimed to analyze the cross‐sectional and retrospective longitudinal associations between erythrocyte ω‐3 index and cognition, brain imaging and biomarkers among older adults. Method 832 participants from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative 3, mean (SD) age 74.0 (7.9) years, 50.8% female, 55.9% cognitively normal, 32.7% with mild cognitive impairment and 11.4% with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) were included. Low ω‐3 index (% eicosapentaenoic acid EPA + % docosahexaenoic acid DHA) was defined as the lowest quartile (≤3.70%). Cognitive tests (composite score; AD Assessment Scale cognitive (ADAS‐Cog) subscale; Wechsler Memory Scale (WMS); Trail Making Test A and B; Category fluency; Mini Mental State Examination; Montreal Cognitive Assessment; Clinical Dementia Rating) and brain variables (hippocampal volume, white matter hyperintensities (WMH), PET amyloid‐β and Tau) were considered as outcomes in regression models. Result Low ω‐3 index was not associated with cognition, hippocampal and WMH volume, brain Aβ and Tau after adjustment for age, education, ApoE ε4, cardiovascular disease, BMI and total intracranial volume in the cross‐sectional analysis. In the retrospective analysis, low ω‐3 index was associated with greater Aβ accumulation over time. The composite cognitive score did not differ between groups; however, low ω‐3 index was associated with greater cognitive decline on the WMS‐Delayed recall but unexpectedly lower cognitive decline on the total ADAS‐Cog. Low ω‐3 index was cross‐sectionally associated with lower performance on WMS tests and higher Tau accumulation among ApoE ε4 carriers. Conclusion Longitudinally, low ω‐3 index was associated with greater Aβ accumulation over time and cognitive decline on the WMS but unexpectedly with lower cognitive decline on the total ADAS‐Cog. Low ω‐3 index was associated with lower cognition on the WMS and higher Tau accumulation among ApoE ε4 carriers in the cross‐sectional analysis.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".