Safety and efficacy of docosahexaenoic acid supplementation during neoadjuvant breast cancer therapy: Findings from the phase <scp>II</scp>, double‐blind, randomized controlled <scp>DHA</scp>‐<scp>WIN</scp> trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is limited clinical evidence of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) efficacy during breast cancer neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of DHA supplementation in breast cancer patients undergoing NAC. Participants (n = 49) were assigned to receive either DHA 4.4 g/day orally (algae triacylglycerol) or a placebo (corn/soy oil) over six cycles (18 weeks) of NAC. The primary outcome was the evaluation of changes in the percentage of Ki-67 expression, assessed by immunohistochemistry analysis from pre- to post-treatment. Secondary outcomes included pathological complete response, incidence of adverse effects, and 3-year survival analysis. Compliance was evaluated by fatty acid analysis of plasma phospholipids and erythrocyte total lipids quantified by gas-liquid chromatography. The expression of Ki-67 significantly decreased in both groups, with no significant effects of the DHA intervention (p = 0.38). When stratified by breast cancer subtype, there was a trend of greater reduction in Ki-67 expression in the human epidermal growth receptor 2 (HER2+++) subtype in the DHA group compared to placebo (p = 0.1). The % of DHA in erythrocytes and plasma phospholipids was increased by two-fold at 9 and 15 weeks of therapy in the DHA group, while it remained unchanged in the placebo group (p-interaction <0.001). There was no reported incidence of adverse effects related to the intervention, and no significant effects were found in the other secondary outcomes. NAC significantly decreased the expression of Ki-67, with no additional beneficial effects observed by DHA supplementation. Further research is necessary to confirm these findings.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".