Effects of Dehydroepiandrosterone Supplementation on Cognitive Function and Quality of Life: The DHEA and Well‐Ness (DAWN) Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine the effects of dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) supplementation on cognitive function and quality of life in healthy older adults. DESIGN: Double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial. SETTING: Clinical research facility. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred ten men and 115 women aged 55 to 85 (mean +/- standard deviation 68 +/- 8). INTERVENTION: Fifty milligrams daily oral DHEA versus placebo for 1 year. MEASUREMENTS: Six cognitive function tests at baseline and 12 months, the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form Survey (SF-36), the Life Satisfaction Index-Z, the Satisfaction with Life Scale, the Female Sexual Function Index (in women), and the 15-item International Index of Erectile Function (in men) at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months. RESULTS: There were no differences between the DHEA and placebo groups in change over time in cognitive function (P>.10). Over time, BDI scores decreased for men (P=.006) and women (P=.02), and Satisfaction with Life Scale scores increased for women (P=.004), but there were no differences between the DHEA and placebo groups over time on these measures or the SF-36, Life Satisfaction Index-Z scale, or sexual function scales (P>.10). CONCLUSION: DHEA supplementation has no benefit on cognitive performance or well-being in healthy older adults, and it should not be recommended for that purpose in the general population.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".