ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2022
Effects of
Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- FermentedPharmaceutical biology · 2026Article
- Article
- Synergistic Neuroprotection in Tauopathic Mice via Green-Synthesized Silver Nanoparticles Co-delivering Methylene Blue and Moringa oleifera.Molecular neurobiology · 2025Article
- Recent Perspectives on the Pharmacological, Nutraceutical, Functional, and Therapeutic Properties ofFood science & nutrition · 2025Review
- Regulation of chronic neuroinflammation through dietary herbal products.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Review
- Water Extracts ofTheScientificWorldJournal · 2024Article
- Review
- Comparative Neuroprotective Effects ofTheScientificWorldJournal · 2024Article
- In Silico Design of Natural Inhibitors of ApoE4 from the PlantMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Article
- The Oil Formulation Derived fromJournal of experimental pharmacology · 2022Article
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The cognitive deficit has frequently been found in the elderly population. Several studies have shown that every single part of Objective: We investigate whether Methods: In this study, 2 ml/kg body weight (BW) of MOO and 500 mg/kg BW of MOE were orally administered to the mice for 28 days, followed by intraperitoneal injection of Sco (1 mg/kg) at the day 22-28 to induce cognitive impairment in those mice. Results: The Sco group showed memory retention impairment represented by the Y-maze and novel object recognition tests, significant enhancement of acetylcholine esterase (AChE) activity in hippocampus tissue ( Conclusion: Our data reveal that MOO is preferable to MOE as a neuroprotective as evidenced by improving memory impairment. This effect, at least in part, through inhibiting the AChE and NF-κB activities and modulating the TrkB expression level.
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.