Omega-3 Blood Levels and Stroke Risk: A Pooled and Harmonized Analysis of 183 291 Participants From 29 Prospective Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effect of marine omega-3 PUFAs on risk of stroke remains unclear. METHODS: We investigated the associations between circulating and tissue omega-3 PUFA levels and incident stroke (total, ischemic, and hemorrhagic) in 29 international prospective cohorts. Each site conducted a de novo individual-level analysis using a prespecified analytical protocol with defined exposures, covariates, analytical methods, and outcomes; the harmonized data from the studies were then centrally pooled. Multivariable-adjusted HRs and 95% CIs across omega-3 PUFA quintiles were computed for each stroke outcome. RESULTS: Among 183 291 study participants, there were 10 561 total strokes, 8220 ischemic strokes, and 1142 hemorrhagic strokes recorded over a median of 14.3 years follow-up. For eicosapentaenoic acid, comparing quintile 5 (Q5, highest) with quintile 1 (Q1, lowest), total stroke incidence was 17% lower (HR, 0.83 [CI, 0.76–0.91]; P <0.0001), and ischemic stroke was 18% lower (HR, 0.82 [CI, 0.74–0.91]; P <0.0001). For docosahexaenoic acid, comparing Q5 with Q1, there was a 12% lower incidence of total stroke (HR, 0.88 [CI, 0.81–0.96]; P =0.0001) and a 14% lower incidence of ischemic stroke (HR, 0.86 [CI, 0.78–0.95]; P =0.0001). Neither eicosapentaenoic acid nor docosahexaenoic acid was associated with a risk for hemorrhagic stroke. These associations were not modified by either baseline history of AF or prevalent CVD. CONCLUSIONS: Higher omega-3 PUFA levels are associated with lower risks of total and ischemic stroke but have no association with hemorrhagic stroke.
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 | 0.031 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".