Role of β-Alanine Supplementation on Cognitive Function, Mood, and Physical Function in Older Adults; Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Study
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
This study investigated 10 weeks of β-alanine (BA) supplementation on changes in cognitive function, mood, and physical performance in 100 older adults (70.6 ± 8.7 y). Participants were randomized into a BA (2.4 g·d−1) or placebo (PL) group. Testing occurred prior to supplementation (PRE), at the midpoint (MID), and at week-10 (POST). Participants completed cognitive function assessments, including the Montreal cognitive assessment (MOCA) and the Stroop pattern recognition test, at each testing session. Behavioral questionnaires [i.e., the profile of mood states, geriatric depression scale (GDS), and geriatric anxiety scale (GAS)] and physical function assessments (grip strength and timed sit-to-stand) were also conducted. No difference between groups was noted in MoCA scores (p = 0.19). However, when examining participants whose MOCA scores at PRE were at or below normal (i.e., ≤26), participants in BA experienced significant improvements in MOCA scores at MID (13.6%, p = 0.009) and POST (11.8%, p = 0.016), compared to PL. No differences were noted in mood scores, GAS, or any of the physical performance measures. A significant decrease was observed in the GDS for participants consuming BA but not in PL. Results suggested that BA supplementation can improve cognitive function in older adults whose cognitive function at baseline was at or below normal and possibly reduce depression scores.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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