Boswellic Acids Improve Clinical Cognitive Scores and Reduce Systemic Inflammation in Patients with Mild to Moderate Alzheimer’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent therapeutic approaches for Alzheimer's disease (AD) have had limited success. Considering the association of neuroinflammation with AD symptoms as demonstrated in multiple studies, assessment of the clinical efficacy of molecules that reduce systemic or brain inflammation is warranted. OBJECTIVE: This clinical trial assessed whether boswellic acids can improve cognitive and neuropsychiatric symptoms while reducing inflammation in AD patients. METHODS: A double-blind, placebo-controlled, study was conducted on 85 AD patients randomized to boswellic acids (K-Vie™ as the main ingredient in Memowell™) or placebo for 6 months. Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SOB) and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores were compared to baseline and between groups and constituted the co-primary clinical efficacy endpoints. Secondary outcomes included neuropsychiatric assessment (Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Questionnaire, NPI-Q) and assessment of AD and inflammation biomarkers. RESULTS: Patients on K-Vie™ showed a 3.1- and 1.6-unit improvement in MMSE and CDR-SOB scores, respectively, when compared to patients on placebo. NPI-Q analysis revealed significant improvement in the K-Vie™ but not in the placebo group. Only mild gastrointestinal side effects were reported in a few patients. Patients on K-Vie™ showed improvement in plasma AD biomarkers and reduction of key inflammatory cytokines including IL-6 and TNF. CONCLUSION: Our results support the positive cognitive effects of boswellic acids by reducing the systemic inflammation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".