Comparative membrane incorporation of omega-3 fish oil triglyceride preparations differing by degree of re-esterification: A sixteen-week randomized intervention trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fish oil is routinely concentrated into unmodified triglycerides, or trans-esterified into an ethyl ester form. Re-esterification of the ethyl ester form yields re-esterified triglycerides (rTG), which are reportedly more bioavailable than ethyl ester forms. However, the fidelity of the re-esterification process may yield variable triglyceride forms, with only 55-60% being rTG. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the blood lipidomic response to supplementation with two rTG supplements, varying by degree of re-esterification, would differ between treatments. DESIGN: This was a double-blind, parallel-design, single-center, 128-day study with sixty young, healthy subjects randomized into two groups. One group received a >95% rTG (Ultimate Omega®), as 1,000 mg capsules containing 325 mg eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and 225 mg docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), and the other received a <70% rTG (MEG-3) as 1,000 mg capsules containing 300 mg EPA and 200 mg DHA. Total intake was 2,750 and 2,500 mg EPA+DHA for the Ultimate Omega® and MEG-3 groups, respectively, with blood drawn at 4, 16 and 24 weeks and analyzed for serum and erythrocyte phospholipid fatty acid (PLFA) content. RESULTS: For erythrocyte PLFA profiles, EPA, docosapentaenoic acid (DPA) and DHA percentage of total erythrocyte PLFA were significantly greater for the Ultimate Omega® group than for the MEG-3 group, at week 16 (P < 0.05), as were the EPA:arachidonic acid (AA) ratio, DHA:AA ratio and EPA+DHA:AA ratio. For serum PLFA profiles, increases in EPA:AA ratio and EPA+DHA:AA ratio were significantly greater at week 4 in the Ultimate Omega® group compared to the MEG-3 group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that the percentage of rTG in rTG fish oil preparations may evolve as a new chemoprofile/quality control marker that can influence its lipidomic pharmacodynamics. Additional investigations to assess the physiologic/vascular and metabolic/inflammasome responses to concentrated fish oil preparations differing in the percentage of rTG are warranted.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".