<b>EFFECT OF OMEGA-3 SUPPLEMENTATION ON COGNITIVE FUNCTION IN PATIENTS WITH EARLY-STAGE ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE: A NOVEL RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL</b>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A progressive neurodegenerative condition connected with cognitive decline, Alzheimer's disease (AD) is also known as Alzheimer's disease. Although omega3 fatty acids have been proposed to have neuroprotective effects, their influence on early-stage AD remains underinvestigated. The impact of daily omega-3 supplementation on cognitive performance in adults with early-stage AD is assessed in this research. 45 individuals between the ages of 55 and 75, drawn from memory clinics and neurology departments using stratified random sampling, participated in a randomized controlled experiment. For six months, participants were randomly allocated to either a placebo group (n=22) or an omega3 supplementation group (n=23). At baseline and after intervention, cognitive performance was evaluated using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADASCog). Mood and daily activities Were assessed with the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) and Activities of Daily Living (ADL) scale. Mean MoCA score following treatment was 24.1 ± 2.2 in the omega3 group compared to 23.0 ± 2.4 in the placebo group (p=0.04). The ADASCog scores fell by 2.0 ± 0.7 points p=0.03 for the omega3 group versus 0.9 ± 0.8 points in the placebo group. Enhancements in GDS and ADL scores were seen in the supplementation group, However, differences were not statistically significant (p>0.05). Omega3 supplementation for six months showed a slight but statistically significant improvement in cognitive function in patients with early-stage Alzheimer's disease. These results show that omega-3 fatty acids might be a safe and supporting supplementary treatment to preserve cognitive function in early AD, therefore call for additional large-scale research.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".