text_1: Fish oil linked to lower Alzheimer’s risk
text_2: "This story reported on the findings from a recent research study that found lower rates of dementia in individuals who had higher levels of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in their blood. They were also able to show individuals who consumed 2 or more servings of fish per week were found to have higher levels of DHA. The reporting about this study is a good example of where the relative risk reduction sounds impressive but the absolute risk reduction is small. Yet the story provided only the relative risk numbers, not the absolute. (Read more about absolute vs. relative risk.) Although it's good that the story pointed out the harms that are associated with fish oil consumption and the lack of FDA approval of fish oil as a means to prevent dementia, it neglected to mention that there currently are no evidence-based means to reduce the incidence of dementia. The story also ought to have included information about other reasons the authors might have found the results they did (chance, confouding dietary or behavioral patterns, etc). Because it is possible that these and not the fish consumption per se are associated with reduced dementia, it is information that a reader should be aware of. The headline of the story – ""Fish Oil Linked to Lower Alzheimer's Risk"" – is somewhat misleading because the results of the story demonstrated that fish oil was associated with lower risk of all-cause dementia; when an attempt was made to parse out the effect of fish oil on Alzheimer's disease specifically, its effect was not statistically significant. It should be noted that this story was not the only one to fail to appreciate this distinction. The editorial accompanying this research in the Archives of Neurology was entitled ""Docosahexaenoic Acid and Alzheimer Disease"" and nowhere in the editorial was the distinction made between Alzheimer's and all-cause dementia."