Dietary counseling plus omega-3 supplementation in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder: results of a randomized wait-list controlled pilot trial (the ‘EASe-GAD Trial’)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Clinical evidence suggests that nutrition interventions can significantly improve symptoms of major depressive disorder; however, the effect on clinical anxiety symptoms in individuals with anxiety disorders has not been studied. The primary objective of the present study was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a nutrition intervention. The secondary objectives included assessing changes in anxiety symptom severity, diet quality, self-efficacy, mindful eating, quality of life, and biomarkers. METHODS: This study was a randomized, wait-list controlled pilot trial delivering a 12-week, biweekly dietary counseling intervention and omega-3 supplementation to 50 adult women with generalized anxiety disorder. Questionnaires and blood work were completed at baseline, after the waiting period, and after the intervention. RESULTS: 443 individuals expressed interest within eight months; 50 met the criteria for enrollment. The mean number of sessions attended was 6.4. Final questionnaires were completed by 46 participants. Eighty-four percent of participants strongly agreed with the statement 'My experience during this study was positive'. The mean anxiety symptom severity score in the intervention group was 26.2 (95% CI 22.94-29.48) at baseline and 11.0 (95% CI 8.05-13.87) at week 12. The mean diet quality score was 7.2 (95% CI 6.32-8.10) and 10.5 (95% CI 9.55-11.49) at baseline and week 12, respectively. Among the waitlist participants, the mean baseline anxiety score was 29.3 (95% CI 24.73-33.91) and 26.8 (95% CI 22.09-31.56) at week 12. DISCUSSION: This study was feasible and acceptable. Participation in the intervention was associated with a decrease in anxiety symptoms. These findings lay the foundation for large-scale studies. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05573672.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".