4.4 Article

Whole-blood fatty acids are associated with executive function in Tanzanian children aged 4-6 years: a cross-sectional study

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
卷 116, 期 9, 页码 1537-1545

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0007114516003494

关键词

Cognition; Executive function; Fatty acids; Lipids; Essential fatty acids; Brain development; Tanzania

资金

  1. American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) [CA-621-A-00-11-00009-00]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Essential fatty acids (EFA) are PUFA that are metabolised to long-chain PUFA and are important for brain development and cognitive function. The objective of this study was to determine the association between whole-blood EFA and cognitive function in Tanzanian children. A total of 325 2-6-year-old children attempted the dimensional change card sort (DCCS) tasks to assess executive function. Blood samples were collected for fatty acid (FA) analysis by GC. Associations between executive function and FA levels were assessed by regression. Among the 130 4-6-year-old children who attempted the DCCS tasks, whole-blood levels of linoleic acid were positively associated with executive function, whereas whole-blood levels of a-linolenic acid and nervonic acid were inversely associated with executive function. A full model including all twenty-five FA explained 38% of the variation in executive function, whereas a reduced model including only the EFA (a-linolenic acid and linoleic acid), DHA and EPA explained 25% of the variation in executive function. Children who had sufficient whole-blood levels of EFA were 3.8 times more likely to successfully complete all DCCS tasks compared with children with insufficient EFA. These results suggest that whole-blood FA levels are associated with cognitive abilities. Intervention trials that include assessment of whole-blood FA levels are required to determine the relationships between intake, blood levels and executive function in Tanzanian children.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据