Omega-3 fatty acids and risk of cognitive impairment and dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been suggested that the dietary intake of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids could be inversely related to the risk of dementia and cognitive decline. This analysis examined the association between plasma concentration of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids and prevalence and incidence of cognitive impairment and dementia. Data are reported on subjects 65 years or older who had a complete clinical evaluation at the first two waves (1991-1992 and 1996-1997) of the Canadian Study of Health and Aging. Main outcome measures were cognitive impairment and dementia by mean relative plasma concentrations of fatty acids in the phospholipid fraction at baseline. Results were adjusted for age, sex, education, smoking, alcohol intake, body mass index, history of cardiovascular disease, and apolipoprotein E e4 genotype. In the cross-sectional analysis, no significant difference in omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid concentrations was observed between controls and both prevalent cases of cognitive impairment and dementia. In the prospective analysis, a higher eicosapentaenoic acid (p < 0.01) concentration was found in cognitively impaired cases compared to controls while higher docosahexaenoic acid (p < 0.07), omega-3 (p < 0.04) and total polyunsaturated fatty acid (p < 0.03) concentrations were found in dementia cases. These findings do not support the hypothesis that omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids play a protective role in cognitive function and dementia.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".