MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2739146440 · doi:10.1016/j.phymed.2017.07.008

Green tea effects on cognition, mood and human brain function: A systematic review

2017· review· en· W2739146440 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhytomedicine · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTea Polyphenols and Effects
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMoodCognitionSystematic reviewPsychologyMedicineClinical psychologyMEDLINEPsychiatryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Green tea (Camellia sinensis) is a beverage consumed for thousands of years. Numerous claims about the benefits of its consumption were stated and investigated. As green tea is experiencing a surge in popularity in Western culture and as millions of people all over the world drink it every day, it is relevant to understand its effects on the human brain. PURPOSE: To assess the current state of knowledge in the literature regarding the effects of green tea or green tea extracts, l-theanine and epigallocatechin gallate both components of green tea-on general neuropsychology, on the sub-category cognition and on brain functions in humans. METHODS: We systematically searched on PubMed database and selected studies by predefined eligibility criteria. We then assessed their quality and extracted data. We structured our effort according to the PRISMA statement. OUTCOME: We reviewed and assessed 21 studies, 4 of which were randomised controlled trials, 12 cross-over studies (both assessed with an adapted version of the DELPHI-list), 4 were cross-sectional studies and one was a cohort study (both assessed with an adapted version of the Newcastle-Ottawa assessment scale). The average study quality as appraised by means of the DELPHI-list was good (8.06/9); the studies evaluated with the Newcastle-Ottawa-scale were also good (6.7/9). CONCLUSIONS: The reviewed studies presented evidence that green tea influences psychopathological symptoms (e.g. reduction of anxiety), cognition (e.g. benefits in memory and attention) and brain function (e.g. activation of working memory seen in functional MRI). The effects of green tea cannot be attributed to a single constituent of the beverage. This is exemplified in the finding that beneficial green tea effects on cognition are observed under the combined influence of both caffeine and l-theanine, whereas separate administration of either substance was found to have a lesser impact.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.304
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.319 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it