ReviewDer Nervenarzt2010
[Options, limits and ethics of pharmacological neuroenhancement].
Review in Der Nervenarzt, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ritual to relief: ethical frontiers in repurposing psychoactive substances.CNS spectrums · 2025Review
- Pharmacological Neuroenhancement: Current Aspects of Categorization, Epidemiology, Pharmacology, Drug Development, Ethics, and Future Perspectives.Neural plasticity · 2021Review
- Evaluating the drivers of and obstacles to the willingness to use cognitive enhancement drugs: the influence of drug characteristics, social environment, and personal characteristics.Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pharmacological neuroenhancement is an attempt to increase cognitive performance in healthy humans. Learning and memory, attention and vigilance or mood and social interaction are targeted by a modulation of brain plasticity. Firstly, an analysis of the current state of research shows that, until now, clinical trials of neuroenhancing drugs have demonstrated only limited efficacy and long-term side effects remain largely unexplored. Secondly, we argue that, from an ethical perspective, neuroenhancement differs from socially mediated methods of learning. Pharmacological neuroenhancement is based on notions of efficacy and control that threaten to undermine other important aspects of mental capacities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
19851745What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.