essential fatty acids for PMDD
A single systematic review suggests essential fatty acids may reduce premenstrual anxiety in the absence of depression, though some included groups showed no effect.
Hypothesized mechanism
Mechanism not yet characterized in the substrate.
This is the model’s proposed mechanism from the sources on file, not a demonstrated causal pathway. How well the published record supports it is reflected in the rigor and plausibility dimensions of the score, and traced to the verbatim sources at the foot of the page.
How the score was reached, for this pair
The composite score is the sum of five dimensions, each scored 0 to 2 by the model from the evidence on file. Below is the sub-score this specific pair received on each, with what that dimension measures. It scored 4 of 10 overall, a emerging reading, from a direct rated emerging in strength.
The model’s overall reasoning for this pair is the summary at the top of the page, and the mechanism it proposed is in the section above.
Scored for women. Evidence generated in women (female population, ~100% female). (band F1, ×1.00).
Corroboration
All claims derive from a single systematic review on EFA and other supplements' impact on stress in women. A single synthesis scores 1, not 2, since the pooled trials inside it do not count as independent replication.
Rigor
The source is a systematic review, which qualifies for the highest rigor tier. However, the quality of underlying trials is not detailed in the claims.
Specificity
The intervention (essential fatty acids) is named directly, and 'premenstrual' anxiety/syndrome is referenced. However, claims address premenstrual anxiety/PMS broadly rather than PMDD specifically, so the exact condition is not directly named.
Plausibility
No mechanism is asserted or described in the claims explaining how EFAs would reduce premenstrual anxiety. The claims report outcomes only, without any pathway.
Consistency
The claims are internally contradictory: some state EFAs were ineffective in reducing anxiety in women (claims 1-2, 4), while others state they were effective in reducing premenstrual anxiety in the absence of depression (claims 3, 5, 6). Direction of effect is inconsistent across the verified claims.
Layers not covered for this pair
Not covered for this pair. This layer holds documented sex-specific pharmacokinetics for a limited set of drugs, and this compound is not among them yet. A blank here means the drug is not covered by the layer, not that no sex difference exists.
More on the sex-specific pharmacokinetics layer and its sources →Not covered for this pair. The cycle-phase layer is seeded for the strongest-evidence cases so far (PMDD), and this pair is not among them yet. A blank here means the pair is not covered by the layer, not that the effect was found to be phase-independent.
More on the cycle-phase layer and its sources →Source evidence · what the pipeline ingested
These are the sources the pipeline ingested to detect and score this signal, the published literature the model actually read, each tagged by study type. Where the model combined findings the claim is marked as a synthesis (S), and where the literature disagrees the contradiction is shown (!).
Every source below belongs to this signal’s evidence arm, Direct research. Whel reads each drug-condition pair through four such arms, each held to its own inclusion bar; a signal is surfaced through one of them.
- 1EFAs were ineffective in reducing stress or anxiety in four groups of women PubMed · PMID 28178022 ↗
- 2EFAs were ineffective in reducing stress or anxiety in four groups of women PubMed · PMID 28178022 ↗
- 3effective in reducing perceived stress and salivary cortisol levels during pregnancy and anxiety in premenstrual women PubMed · PMID 28178022 ↗
- 4ineffective when depression was disregarded PubMed · PMID 28178022 ↗
These are the verbatim sources the pipeline surfaced and read; they may not be the full published record for a pair, and the score reflects the strength and agreement of the evidence rather than its volume. The strength of these source types is what the rigor dimension of the score reads off. MATRIX, sex-specific pharmacokinetics, and cycle phase are separate layers the pipeline does not ingest, external cross-references reported beside the score, and they link to their own sources in their sections above.
The primary sources and pipelines this evidence is drawn from →