New perspectives on randomized controlled trials with omega-3 fatty acid supplements and cognition: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Long chain polyunsaturated omega-3 fatty acids (n-3 FA), such as eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), are known to be important components in a healthy diet and contribute to healthy functioning of the heart and the brain, among other organs. Although there are epidemiological studies on the strong relationship between fish or n-3 FA consumption and lower risk of cognitive decline, results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are less consistent. Here, we performed a scoping review on RCTs with n-3 FA supplementation where cognition was evaluated. Seventy-eight RCTs published before April 2022 were included in this review. Among these RCTs, 43.6% reported a positive cognitive outcome after the consumption of n-3 FA compared to the placebo. However, there was a large diversity of populations studied (age ranges and health status), wide range of doses of EPA + DHA supplemented (79 mg/day - 5200 mg/day) and a multitude of tests evaluating cognition, mainly diagnostic tests, that were used to assess cognitive scores and overall cognitive status. RCTs were thereafter categorized into non-cognitively impaired middle-aged adults (n = 24), non-cognitively impaired older adults (n = 24), adults with subjective memory complaints (n = 14), adults with mild cognitive impairments (MCI, n = 9) and people with diagnosed dementia or other cognitive changes (n = 7). Among these categories, 66.7% of RCTs conducted with MCI adults reported a positive cognitive outcome when supplemented with n-3 FA vs. the placebo. Therefore, this scoping review provides rationale and questions to a) strengthen the design of future RCTs with n-3 FA for cognitive outcomes, and b) generate more informative data to support clinicians in their practice in assessing cognition before and after a nutritional intervention.
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 | 0.126 | 0.131 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.032 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; 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".