Efficacy of branched chain amino acid administration on cognitive function: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Branched chain amino acids (BCAA) are essential amino acids that include leucine, isoleucine, and valine. Recent studies indicate that BCAAs might influence cognitive health. This systematic review aims to examine the impact of BCAAs on cognitive function. Method: The PRISMA guidelines were adhered to, and a literature search of electronic databases was conducted to gather studies meeting the inclusion criteria up to April 2024. Studies that administered BCAA and evaluated cognitive function in patients or healthy participants were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized studies and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. Results: Out of 41 screened studies, 8 met the inclusion criteria, including 353 participants. Risk of bias assessment rated 6 studies as high quality and 2 as medium quality. Analysis showed that 5 studies found no significant changes in cognitive function after BCAA administration, while 3 reported improvements. Conclusion: BCAA supplementation for cognitive health is influenced by dosage, duration, and underlying health conditions. Some studies suggest potential detrimental effects, while others find no significant impact. Larger, rigorously designed clinical trials are needed to establish clearer causal relationships and optimize therapeutic strategies.
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 | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".