Effects of Curcumin on Cognitive Function—A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Curcumin is a polyphenol present in turmeric and is credited with anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, and chemoprotective properties. Questions remain surrounding curcumin’s bioavailability and the mechanism by which it may exert neuroprotective effects. Following PRISMA 2009 guidelines, a systematic review was conducted to identify randomized, placebo-controlled trials investigating the effects of curcumin supplementation on cognitive function in older adults (>50 years). Five databases were searched (CINAHL, Cochrane Library, PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science) with five studies identified, each using different forms of curcumin and validated cognitive screening measures, meeting inclusion criteria. Curcumin doses ranged from between 90 and 4,000 mg/day, with significant improvements found in three of the five studies. Firstly, the most recent study found improvements with 90 mg of curcumin twice daily in tests of selective reminding (p = 0.002), visual memory (p = 0.01), and attention (p < 0.0001) over 18 months in non-demented individuals. The second study found improvement in Montreal Cognitive Assessment tool with 1,500 mg/day curcumin over 52 weeks (p = 0.02). Another study found improvement in serial three subtraction task responses after 4 weeks compared with the placebo group (p = 0.044). Of the adverse events reported (n = 58), gastrointestinal symptoms were most common (n = 34). Before curcumin can be recommended to treat or reduce rates of cognitive decline, well-designed trials with standardization in dose, method of assessing cognition, and duration, are required to determine the most bioavailable form of curcumin with minimal adverse effects.
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 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 | 0.018 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 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 it