ArticlePloS one2025
Investigating cognitive-enhancing supplement use among students at a Dutch life science university.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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.
- Predictors of Psychoactive and Nootropic Substance Use Among Romanian University Healthcare Students: The Interplay Between Academic Anxiety and Educational Advancement.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Prevalence and predictors of natural nootropic supplement use among medical and pharmacy students: a single-institution cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Developmental Toxicity Evaluation of the Dietary Supplement Vinpocetine Using Mouse and Human 3D Gastruloids.Birth defects research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of cognitive enhancers among college students has drawn significant attention due to their impact on academic performance and health. This study investigates the prevalence, types, and motivations for cognitive-enhancing supplements (CES) use among students at Wageningen University & Research, as well as their perception of safety and authenticity aspects of CES. Data were collected from December 2023 to January 2024 via an online survey. The analysis was performed using R Statistical Language. Among the 288 students who participated (mean age = 23.1 years), 51.7% were aware of CES, with higher awareness among non-EU students (52.1%) compared to Dutch (20.5%) and other EU students (24.6%) (p = 0.001). Older students (40.5%) were more likely to consider using CES than younger ones (21.1%) (p = 0.005). CES usage was 11.5%, which is lower than in other European studies. Safety was a major concern, with participants trusting primarily scientific research but feeling inadequately informed about CES safety. Differences in authenticity concerns between users and non-users were noted (p = 0.003). The findings highlight the need for improved information and regulatory oversight regarding CES.
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.