Does brain creatine content rely on exogenous creatine in healthy youth? A proof-of-principle study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been hypothesized that dietary creatine could influence cognitive performance by increasing brain creatine in developing individuals. This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, proof-of-principle study aimed to investigate the effects of creatine supplementation on cognitive function and brain creatine content in healthy youth. The sample comprised 67 healthy participants aged 10 to 12 years. The participants were given creatine or placebo supplementation for 7 days. At baseline and after the intervention, participants undertook a battery of cognitive tests. In a random subsample of participants, brain creatine content was also assessed in the regions of left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, left hippocampus, and occipital lobe by proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy (1H-MRS) technique. The scores obtained from verbal learning and executive functions tests did not significantly differ between groups at baseline or after the intervention (all p > 0.05). Creatine content was not significantly different between groups in left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, left hippocampus, and occipital lobe (all p > 0.05). In conclusion, a 7-day creatine supplementation protocol did not elicit improvements in brain creatine content or cognitive performance in healthy youth, suggesting that this population mainly relies on brain creatine synthesis rather than exogenous creatine intake to maintain brain creatine homeostasis.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".