ArticleTranslational neuroscience2017
The Essentials of a Global Index for Cognitive Function.
Article in Translational neuroscience, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Positive airway pressure therapy for post-stroke sleep disordered breathing: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2023Pooled it
- Preoperative Geriatric Characteristics Associated with Changes in Postoperative Cognitive Function and Quality of Life: A Prospective Observational Analytic Multicenter Study.Annals of geriatric medicine and research · 2025Observational
- Effects of acceptance and commitment therapy on cognitive function: A systematic review.Heliyon · 2023Review
- Breaking new frontiers: Assessment and re-evaluation of clinical trial design for nutraceuticals.Frontiers in nutrition · 2022Article
- Preeclampsia and Neurodevelopmental Outcomes: Potential Pathogenic Roles for Inflammation and Oxidative Stress?Molecular neurobiology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cognition is comprised of the faculties: perception, creativity, intuition, and ratiocination. Optimal levels of cognition are needed for independent functioning and balanced living. With an aging population that continues to grow, dietary supplements that tilt the balance towards maintenance of cognition are being marketed for vulnerable populations facing these challenges. Randomized clinical trials provide the causal inference necessary to define the efficacy of emerging nutraceuticals. Cognition testing, in particular, requires a battery of tests that encompass all brain regions involved in cognition so as to provide endpoints necessary for product validation. The lack of well controlled studies for comparison analyses, limited sample sizes, ambiguous dosages, and poor cognitive measures result in data that cannot be compared across studies to determine the efficacy of supplements claiming to enhance cognition. Clinical trials for the nutraceutical industry should consider the multifaceted nature of supplements, where clinical endpoints must be comprehensive while remaining feasible. Combining endpoints of cognition with physiological biomarkers of immunity and metabolism to arrive at a global index for cognitive health may be necessary for claim substantiation in order to fully justify and scientifically validate improvements in cognitive health. The issues and needs of a global index will be discussed here.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.