No rest for the stimmed: energy from caffeine or caffeine et al.?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of an energy drink vs. a caffeine-matched control on mental and physical performance.Methods Using a randomized, double-blind design (n = 62), subjects were assigned to an energy drink (Ghost®) or a caffeine-matched control (200 mg caffeine). The following assessments were conducted before and approximately 45 minutes after consuming an energy drink or caffeine-matched control: psychomotor vigilance test (PVT), CNS Tap Test, handgrip strength, and POMS.Results Table 1 shows the subject demographics. There were no significant differences between the treatment and control for any of the assessments. Both groups improved in the total mood disturbance score; in addition, treatment improved in the CNS Tap Test. However, there were no between-group differences for any of the other assessments.Conclusions Consuming the energy drink or caffeine-matched control resulted in an improvement in the total mood disturbance. In addition, consuming the energy drink significantly improved the CNS Tap Test score. However, there were no between-group differences for any of the measures. Thus, it is ostensible that any effect of an energy drink is likely due primarily to caffeine itself.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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".