SynthesisFrontiers in nutrition2025
The effects of
Synthesis in Frontiers in nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The effects ofFrontiers in nutrition · 2025Pooled it
- Gut microbiome-mediated bioactive ingredients and health benefits of medicinal and edible fermented products: A comprehensive review.Folia microbiologica · 2026Review
- A Heatmap-Based Risk-Benefit Assessment of Traditional and Processed Meat Products.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Functional fermented foods in public health nutrition: key biomolecular mechanisms, gut microbiota interactions, and implications for metabolic disease prevention.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
26 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Psychobiotics are microorganisms that modulate brain function via the gut-brain axis and are increasingly studied for their cognitive benefits. Methods: We conducted the systematic review following EFSA guidelines, Cochrane methodology, and a PROSPERO protocol, using CADIMA for study selection and data extraction. PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library were searched (1 January 1970-31 August 2023) for human intervention and observational studies assessing cognitive outcomes after ingestion of foods fermented with Results: We included 21 studies (8 interventional, 13 observational). The majority of studies reported benefits, particularly in episodic memory, executive functions, and global cognition, but evidence was limited by inadequate controls, small sample sizes, short interventions, inconsistent domain assessment, and incomplete food characterization. Observational studies had larger populations and longer follow-ups but were limited by exposure assessment and depth of cognitive testing. Conclusion: Consumption of foods fermented with Systematic review registration: This study was registered at the Open Science Framework (10.17605/OSF.IO/Z6GRW).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.