The effects of a dietary supplement on brain function and structure in Junior A ice hockey players: a prospective randomized trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Neurocognitive impairment linked to head impact exposure in otherwise healthy, non-concussed athletes may be associated with adverse long-term outcomes. The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate whether a dietary supplement, Synaquell TM , supports brain function and structure in male Junior A ice hockey players over the course of a season. Methods Players underwent pre-season testing, were randomized into a placebo or dietary supplement group, then were retested after the season. Objective tests included: NeuroCatch ® portable evoked potential platform, King-Devick Test of rapid number naming, and blood biomarker assay for neurofilament light chain (NfL). Results Multivariate analysis revealed significant differences in neurocognitive changes between groups from pre to postseason after controlling for covariates related to head impact exposure. Post-hoc tests showed significant within-subject differences between groups from pre- to post-season in both N100 latency (p = 0.005) and King-Devick score (p = 0.043). Univariate tests of the NeuroCatch results replicated prior findings of a N400 amplitude decrease (p = 0.017) and N100 latency increase (p = 0.049) in the placebo group, but not in the dietary supplement group. Conclusions This prospective, randomized trial showed that, compared to the placebo group, a multi-ingredient dietary supplement significantly affected objective measures of brain function and structure in Junior A ice hockey players from pre- to post-season. Further investigation into the effects of dietary supplementation on the contact athlete’s brain is warranted.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".