Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41066332›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Investigating cognitive-enhancing supplement use among students at a Dutch life science university.

Elena Escano, Nilüfer Sezer, Annemieke Maria Pustjens

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Elena EscanoWageningen Food Safety Research, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7412-5912
Nilüfer SezerWageningen Food Safety Research, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Annemieke Maria PustjensWageningen Food Safety Research, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-5582-4238

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

CognitionDietary SupplementsNootropic AgentsStudentsAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMaleMotivationNetherlandsSurveys and QuestionnairesUniversitiesYoung AdultNootropic Agents

Identifiers

PMID41066332
PMCPMC12510594

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.