The process talks about removing trials that were performed in unhealthy populations, but expanding the top two entries shows almost exclusively trials performed in patients with Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s, ADHD, and more. So take the AI-based filtering with a huge dose of skepticism.
Nootropics communities like to wave these details away because they like positive results and think that the drugs simply increase cognition, but that’s rarely true.
The #2 entry in the list is the perfect example of this: Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors can show positive effects in disease states like Parkinson’s (where dopaminergic neurons are destroyed, resulting in specific imbalances) but they are known to induce depression in healthy volunteers. Confusingly, they can cause feelings of positive effect early on before the depression sets in for some people. This leads to an all too common scenario on nootropics forums where someone suffers from depression for months or years before realizing that their supplement stack containing cholinergic substances is making it worse. Some times people don’t realize this until they accidentally run out and start feeling better after a few days of not taking their supplements.
1) many substances are drugs, others foods and others natural elements. Nootropic is such a wide term
2) non-blindness is a major source of error. Mental function has a huge error bars with many causal factors and nonsensitive measurement methods
3) such "meta-analyses" are typically performed by experts in the field. But you are also a kind of supplement expert after "many years on /r/nootropics"
4) the champions (amphetamines and AChE inhibitors) are of no surprise. They have so vast and widespread effects that are more drugs than mere -tropics
5) as a neurologist I can see some clinical relevance of your work. By prescribing something some benefit is offered but more confusion is caused from which one is better.
I think there are a lot of limitations with this article.
Its hard to track your mesh search terms, but looks like you are searching for improvement AND a lot of other search terms. Aren't you filtering out any articles which show deterioration?
I think a meta analysis is probably what you are actually looking for. It would be better, I think, to read some of these and manually include relevant references.
Hi, I'm the creator of outspeaker and that analysis. I'm planning on doing a lot more analysis on the data I've gathered and processed. There is a lot more work to be done, but I liked the general overview as it was quite unanimous with the general anecdotal experience I've seen on /r/nootropics
They somehow broke Font Contrast FF addon. If you go to the main site and back it shows the article, but you can't read it without straining your eyes because it is light gray on white. Font Contrast helps, but not in this case. Depending on how I approach to use it, the site either refuses to show the article, or fixes contrast for the heading but not for the bulk of the text.
Not a referral issue. Doing ctrl-click or middle-click or open-in-a-new-tab all are broken too.
Most likely it is just a typical broken spa.
Most web apps, are shut for the websites. They ignore and badly processes the url because things like linking to content, ctrl-click, bookmarks, sharing with friends are afterthought and not on forefront of developers mind.
I don't think pharmaceuticals qualify as nootropics as they're never without meaningful adverse effects. The safety profile is more important than the effect profile.
I scrolled down to find Piracetam - it says "illegal everywhere" which is plainly untrue. It's sold OTC in dozens of countries and by prescription elsewhere. It's an uncontrolled substance in the US. I absolutely believe the 40% figure (it had little to no positive benefit for me) but casting it as illegal is wild misinformation.
And saying that cocoa flavanols cause acne? What is this, a middle school lunch table in 1985? Falsities like this don't inspire confidence in the conclusions.
Regarding the piracetam claim, piracetam (back in like 2015) used to be very easily acquirable primarily due to it being a diffuse unknown substance. Today though, most european countries do not have it as OTC.
Results: Chocolate consumption caused a significant increase in corneocyte desquamation only in the group of young men, whereas Gram-positive microorganism presence significantly increased in both the young and middle-aged men, though this effect was noticeably stronger in the young men.
Here is another: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24847404/
Conclusion: It appears that in acne-prone, male individuals, the consumption of chocolate correlates to an increase in the exacerbation of acne.
Very nice data science. All those studies crunched into a single image. Line length = study number. Green = improvement. It really shows what compounds have the most evidence and effects at a glance.
The process talks about removing trials that were performed in unhealthy populations, but expanding the top two entries shows almost exclusively trials performed in patients with Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s, ADHD, and more. So take the AI-based filtering with a huge dose of skepticism.
Nootropics communities like to wave these details away because they like positive results and think that the drugs simply increase cognition, but that’s rarely true.
The #2 entry in the list is the perfect example of this: Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors can show positive effects in disease states like Parkinson’s (where dopaminergic neurons are destroyed, resulting in specific imbalances) but they are known to induce depression in healthy volunteers. Confusingly, they can cause feelings of positive effect early on before the depression sets in for some people. This leads to an all too common scenario on nootropics forums where someone suffers from depression for months or years before realizing that their supplement stack containing cholinergic substances is making it worse. Some times people don’t realize this until they accidentally run out and start feeling better after a few days of not taking their supplements.
Great work. Some points:
1) many substances are drugs, others foods and others natural elements. Nootropic is such a wide term
2) non-blindness is a major source of error. Mental function has a huge error bars with many causal factors and nonsensitive measurement methods
3) such "meta-analyses" are typically performed by experts in the field. But you are also a kind of supplement expert after "many years on /r/nootropics"
4) the champions (amphetamines and AChE inhibitors) are of no surprise. They have so vast and widespread effects that are more drugs than mere -tropics
5) as a neurologist I can see some clinical relevance of your work. By prescribing something some benefit is offered but more confusion is caused from which one is better.
I think there are a lot of limitations with this article.
Its hard to track your mesh search terms, but looks like you are searching for improvement AND a lot of other search terms. Aren't you filtering out any articles which show deterioration?
I think a meta analysis is probably what you are actually looking for. It would be better, I think, to read some of these and manually include relevant references.
Neither of your assumptions are true.
I’ve never thought of blueberries as a nootropic before.
I think it would be useful to categorize the data on the basis of ailment fix/benefit rather than chemical targets for the general population
Hi, I'm the creator of outspeaker and that analysis. I'm planning on doing a lot more analysis on the data I've gathered and processed. There is a lot more work to be done, but I liked the general overview as it was quite unanimous with the general anecdotal experience I've seen on /r/nootropics
Front page and "post not found" error when clicking the link. What am I missing?
Hi, I am the creator of outspeaker.com and that article. I was restarting my server lol
^ I think it must have a refer check thing. I went back to the main site and clicked the link from there then it showed the article.
They somehow broke Font Contrast FF addon. If you go to the main site and back it shows the article, but you can't read it without straining your eyes because it is light gray on white. Font Contrast helps, but not in this case. Depending on how I approach to use it, the site either refuses to show the article, or fixes contrast for the heading but not for the bulk of the text.
Some1 worked really hard to break everything.
Not a referral issue. Doing ctrl-click or middle-click or open-in-a-new-tab all are broken too.
Most likely it is just a typical broken spa.
Most web apps, are shut for the websites. They ignore and badly processes the url because things like linking to content, ctrl-click, bookmarks, sharing with friends are afterthought and not on forefront of developers mind.
Yes it is possible to reach the content but navigation is seriously broken.
I've found a good night's sleep + 100mg modafinil makes me a LOT more productive.
The image with the results is https://outspeaker.com/images/1
I don't think pharmaceuticals qualify as nootropics as they're never without meaningful adverse effects. The safety profile is more important than the effect profile.
I scrolled down to find Piracetam - it says "illegal everywhere" which is plainly untrue. It's sold OTC in dozens of countries and by prescription elsewhere. It's an uncontrolled substance in the US. I absolutely believe the 40% figure (it had little to no positive benefit for me) but casting it as illegal is wild misinformation.
And saying that cocoa flavanols cause acne? What is this, a middle school lunch table in 1985? Falsities like this don't inspire confidence in the conclusions.
Regarding the piracetam claim, piracetam (back in like 2015) used to be very easily acquirable primarily due to it being a diffuse unknown substance. Today though, most european countries do not have it as OTC.
Hi, I am the creator of outspeaker and that analysis. Regarding the acne claim, you can read more about it here: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6169599/
Results: Chocolate consumption caused a significant increase in corneocyte desquamation only in the group of young men, whereas Gram-positive microorganism presence significantly increased in both the young and middle-aged men, though this effect was noticeably stronger in the young men.
Here is another: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24847404/ Conclusion: It appears that in acne-prone, male individuals, the consumption of chocolate correlates to an increase in the exacerbation of acne.
Very nice data science. All those studies crunched into a single image. Line length = study number. Green = improvement. It really shows what compounds have the most evidence and effects at a glance.
Thanks :D