Circulating docosahexaenoic acid and risk of all-cause and cause-specific mortality
Open accessIntegrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Meta-analyses of prospective cohort studies focusing on omega-3 blood levels as the exposure have reported lower risk for mortality from all causes and from CVD, cancer and remaining other causes.
“Meta-analyses of prospective cohort studies focusing on omega-3 blood levels as the exposure have reported lower risk for mortality from all causes and from CVD, cancer and remaining other causes21.”
From Effects of Omega-3 Fatty Acid Treatment on Risk for Atrial Fibrillation: An Updated Meta-Analysis of 35 Trials including 114 592 Individuals (2026) · cites this paper as [21]
- Authors
- O'Keefe, E. L., O'Keefe, J. H., Tintle, N. L., Westra, J., Abuisson, L., & Harris, W. S.
- Affiliations
- Tulane University (US)
- University of Missouri–Kansas City (US)
- Fatty Acid Research Institute (US)
- University of Denver (US)
- Venue
- SSRN Electronic Journal
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2023
- ISSN
- 1556-5068 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4366131775
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Fatty Acid Research and Health
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutritional Studies and Diet
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Healthcare Systems and Public Health
- Keywords
- docosahexaenoic acid, omega-3 fatty acids, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, cancer mortality, cause-specific mortality, mortality risk, UK Biobank, prospective cohort, fish consumption, fish oil supplementation, polygenic risk score, circulating biomarkers
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
