Safety and preliminary efficacy on cognitive performance and adaptive functionality of epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG) in children with Down syndrome. A randomized phase Ib clinical trial (PERSEUS study)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Although some caregivers are using epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG) off label in hopes of improving cognition in young adults with Down syndrome (DS), nothing is known about its safety, tolerability, and efficacy in the DS pediatric population. We aimed to evaluate safety and tolerability of a dietary supplement containing EGCG and if EGCG improves cognitive and functional performance. METHODS: A total of 73 children with DS (aged 6-12 years) were randomized. Participants received 0.5% EGCG (10 mg/kg daily dose) or placebo for 6 months with 3 months follow up after treatment discontinuation. RESULTS: In total, 72 children were treated and 66 completed the study. A total of 38 participants were included in the EGCG group and 35 in the placebo group. Of 72 treated participants, 62 (86%) had 229 treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs). Of 37 participants in the EGCG group, 13 (35%) had 18 drug-related treatment-emergent AEs and 12 of 35 (34%) from the placebo group had 22 events. In the EGCG group, neither severe AEs nor increase in the incidence of AEs related to safety biomarkers were observed. Cognition and functionality were not improved compared with placebo. Secondary efficacy outcomes in girls point to a need for future work. CONCLUSION: The use of EGCG is safe and well-tolerated in children with DS, but efficacy results do not support its use in this 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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".