β-Alanine supplementation improves fractional anisotropy scores in the hippocampus and amygdala in 60–80-year-old men and women
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
Recently, β-alanine (BA) supplementation was shown to improve cognitive function in older adults with decreased cognitive function. Mechanisms supporting these improvements have not been well defined. This study examined the effects of 10-weeks of BA supplementation on changes in circulating brain inflammatory markers, brain derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), and brain morphology. Twenty participants were initially randomized into BA (2.4 g·d−1) or placebo (PL) groups. At each testing session, participants provided a resting blood sample and completed the Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA) test and magnetic resonance imaging, which included diffusion tensor imaging to assess brain tissue integrity. Only participants that scored at or below normal for the MoCA assessment were analyzed (6 BA and 4 PL). The Mann-Whitney U test was used to examine Δ (POST–PRE) differences between the groups. No differences in Δ scores were noted in any blood marker (BDNF, CRP, TNF-α and GFAP). Changes in fractional anisotropy scores were significantly greater for BA than PL in the right hippocampus (p = 0.033) and the left amygdala (p = 0.05). No other differences were noted. The results provide a potential mechanism of how BA supplementation may improve cognitive function as reflected by improved tissue integrity within the hippocampus and amygdala.
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 | 0.000 | 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 it