The effect of grape seed procyanidins extract on cognitive function in elderly people with mild cognitive impairment: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Procyanidins have antioxidative properties that may protect against age-related brain oxidative stress. Previous studies indicated that procyanidin-rich foods could improve cognitive function and prevent neurodegenerative diseases. This study hypothesized that grape seed procyanidins extract (GSPE) would have a favorable effect on cognitive function in elderly people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Methods A community-based, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted. Participants aged 60 years or older with MCI were randomly assigned into the GSPE group (n = 35, 320 mg/d) or placebo group (n = 36), and received capsules for 6 months. Cognitive function was assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale (MoCA). The change in MoCA scores between groups were tested by the time ✕ treatment interaction in mixed-design ANOVA. Results After 6 months of intervention, the MoCA score was higher than the baseline both in the intervention group and placebo control group, while the there was no significant difference for mean change in MoCA score from baseline between the intervention group and the placebo group (2.35 ± 3.20 vs. 1.28 ± 2.93, P = 0.192). Conclusions Present study showed that 6-month supplementation with GSPE did not significantly improve cognitive function in subjects with MCI. Further investigations regarding the longer-term intervention effect of procyanidins extract on mild or moderate cognitive disorders are needed.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".