Neuropsychological Performance after Extended N-Pep-12 Dietary Supplementation in Supratentorial Ischemic Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Cognitive deficits following ischemic stroke significantly impair quality of life, highlighting the need for effective interventions. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of extended N-Pep-12 dietary supplementation in enhancing cognitive recovery post-stroke. Methods: In this randomized, open-label, controlled study, 106 patients with supratentorial ischemic stroke were enrolled to receive either 90mg N-Pep-12 or no supplementation daily for 360 days and were followed-up for 360 days. Cognitive function and emotional well-being were assessed using established neuropsychological scales at baseline, 90 days, and 360 days post-stroke. Safety was monitored through adverse events and mortality rates. Results: Significant improvements were observed in the N-Pep-12 group compared to controls, particularly in the Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores at both 90 and 360 days, and in the Digit Symbol Coding scores at 360 days, suggesting enhanced cognitive recovery with extended N-Pep-12 supplementation. A linear regression for a composite outcome analysis at day 360 further confirmed the efficacy of N-Pep-12 in contributing to cognitive improvement. Safety profiles were favorable, with no significant adverse effects attributed to N-Pep-12. Conclusions: Extended dietary supplementation with N-Pep-12 appears to offer a safe and effective approach to support cognitive recovery in ischemic stroke survivors. These findings underscore the potential of the supplement as an add-on intervention for managing post-stroke cognitive impairments.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".