Effect of Alpha-Linolenic Acid Supplementation on Cardiovascular Disease Risk Profile in Individuals with Obesity or Overweight: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Overweight and obesity are highly prevalent worldwide and are associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors, including systematic inflammation, dyslipidemia, and hypertension. Alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) is a plant-based essential polyunsaturated fatty acid associated with reduced CVD risks. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effects of supplementation with ALA compared with the placebo on CVD risk factors in people with obesity or overweight (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews Registration No. CRD42023429563). This review included studies with adults using oral supplementation or food or combined interventions containing vegetable sources of ALA. All studies were randomly assigned trials with parallel or crossover designs. The Cochrane Collaboration tool was used for assessing the risk of bias (Version 1). PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane library databases were searched from inception to April 2023. Nineteen eligible randomized controlled trials, including 1183 participants, were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with placebo, dietary ALA supplementation significantly reduced C-reactive protein concentration (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.38 mg/L; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.72, -0.04), tumor necrosis factor-α concentration (SMD = -0.45 pg/mL; 95% CI: -0.73, -0.17), triglyceride in serum (SMD = -4.41 mg/dL; 95% CI: -5.99, -2.82), and systolic blood pressure (SMD = -0.37 mm Hg; 95% CI: -0.66, -0.08); but led to a significant increase in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations (SMD = 1.32 mg/dL; 95% CI: 0.05, 2.59). ALA supplementation had no significant effect on interleukin-6, diastolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, or high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (all P ≥ 0.05). Subgroup analysis revealed that ALA supplementation at a dose of ≥3 g/d from flaxseed and flaxseed oil had a more prominent effect on improving CVD risk profiles, particularly where the intervention duration was ≥12 wk and where the baseline CVD profile was poor.
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 | 0.012 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".