Curcumin and Cognitive Function: A Systematic Review of the Effects of Curcumin on Adults With and Without Neurocognitive Disorders
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
This systematic review investigates the effect of curcumin on neurocognitive exams and inflammatory serum biomarkers in adults 18 years and older. We search PubMed, Science Direct, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, and Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute. Modeling the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (PRISMA), we screened 1,284 studies with the keywords "neurocognitive disorders," "dementia," "cognitive health," "serum biomarkers," and "curcumin." We use the revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool (RoB2) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to select 12 open-access full-text articles published within 20 years. We include clinical trials, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and human studies, excluding nonhumans, other design types, and schizophrenia. Despite gastrointestinal side effects, studies found curcumin significantly improves working memory in the following adult groups: non-demented, metabolically impaired, cognitively impaired, mood impaired, and chemotherapy impaired. Study limitations include variable population characteristics and few trials employing intention-to-treat analysis, emphasizing the need for shared clinical decision-making before curcumin therapy.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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