Dose–Response of Creatine Supplementation on Cognitive Function in Healthy Young Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To determine if creatine (Cr) supplementation could influence cognitive performance and whether any changes were related to changes in prefrontal cortex (PFC) activation during such cognitive tasks, thirty (M = 11, F = 19) participants were evenly randomized to receive supplementation with Cr (CR10:10 g/day or CR20:20 g/day) or a placebo (PLA:10 g/day) for 6 weeks. Participants completed a cognitive test battery (processing speed, episodic memory, and attention) on two separate occasions prior to and following supplementation. Functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) was used to measure PFC oxyhemoglobin (O2Hb) during the cognitive evaluation. A two-way repeated measures ANOVA was used to determine the differences between the groups and the timepoints for the cognitive performance scores and PFC O2Hb. In addition, a one-way ANOVA of % change was used to determine pre- and post-differences between the groups. Creatine (independent of dosage) had no significant effect on the measures of cognitive performance. There was a trend for decreased relative PFC O2Hb in the CR10 group versus the PLA group in the processing speed test (p = 0.06). Overall, six weeks of Cr supplementation at a moderate or high dose does not improve cognitive performance or change PFC activation in young adults.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 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".