Relevance of Omega-3 and Omega-6 / Omega-3 Ratio in Preventing Cognitive Impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The epidemiological and social relevance of dementia and mild cognitive impairment increases with life expectancy and prevalence of metabolic disorders. The recognition of an important role for dietary nutrients on cognitive functioning opens new preventive strategies. This work analyses the association between erythrocyte omega-3 index and omega-6 / omega-3 ratio and cognitive performance/ mild cognitive impairment.Material and Methods: We selected a random sample of individuals registered at a health centre aged ≥ 55 years. Participants were asked about their alimentary habits, erythrocyte indexes were determined and neuropsychological evaluation included the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and a comprehensive test battery.Results: Mean age of 90 participants was 64 years (sd = 5.6), 71.1% had four years of education and 40% of them had more than one vascular risk factor. Limits for omega-3 index and omega-6 / omega-3 ratio were 2.90 - 9.79 (mean = 6.20; sd = 1.50) and 1.14 - 2.95 (mean = 2.12; sd = 0.39), respectively. Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores ranged from 10 to 29 (mean = 22; sd = 4.5), increasing on average 1 - 2 points for above average omega-3 values and an omega-6 / omega-3 ratio ≤ 2 (Group 1) and decreasing 5 - 6 points for omega-3 below mean values and the same omega-6 / omega-3 ratio (Group 2). Prevalence of mild cognitive impairment was 25.6% (95% CI: 16.4 - 34.7), ranging from 12.5% to 83.3% in the two groups above.Discussion: This preliminary study is one of the first analyzing the repercussion of omega-3 index and omega-6 / omega-3 ratio on cognitive functioning, considering additionally the participant clinical and dietary profiles.Conclusion: The association found suggests that omega-3 and omega-6 / omega-3 ratio could be important biomarkers in the prevention of cognitive impairment.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".