What clinical trials support Memory Blast's efficacy for memory improvement?

1. No direct evidence: “Memory Blast” not found in clinical-trial listings

A systematic read of the supplied materials — federal resources, academic center trial pages and recent reviews of the Alzheimer’s pipeline — finds many trials and recruitment tools, but none identify a trial for a product named “Memory Blast.” The NIA clinical-trials portal and Alzheimer’s.gov trial finder are highlighted as places to locate trials, yet the supplied excerpts do not show any listing for “Memory Blast” ^{[3] [4]}. Likewise, academic memory-center pages (UCSF, UCSD, MADRC) describe active and upcoming studies but do not reference a “Memory Blast” trial ^{[5] [6] [7]}.

2. What the sources do document: a large, active AD trial ecosystem

The most concrete dataset in the material is an update of Alzheimer’s drug development noting 182 clinical trials assessing 138 drugs as of January 1, 2025, broken down by phase: 48 Phase 3, 86 Phase 2, 48 Phase 1 — demonstrating a crowded, fast-moving field where new agents and first‑in‑human studies frequently appear ^[1]. The National Institute on Aging also reports hundreds of active Alzheimer’s/dementia trials (495 active trials listed in one NIA summary), underlining that many legitimate trials exist and are searchable through official portals ^[2].

3. Example of a new investigational agent—shows how claims should be verified

One example in the supplied sources is GL-II-73, an experimental molecule that showed procognitive effects in mice and — according to a ScienceDaily summary of Center for Addiction and Mental Health work — received FDA clearance to begin human trials with a Phase 1 planned for the first half of 2025 ^[8]. This demonstrates the typical path: preclinical results published in peer-reviewed journals, press summaries, then explicit announcements of FDA clearance and trial start dates — the kind of documentation you should expect if a product like “Memory Blast” had bona fide clinical trials ^[8].

4. How to check claims about a named product’s trials

Based on the sources, the correct verification steps are: search ClinicalTrials.gov or the NIA/Alzheimers.gov trial finder; consult memory-center trial pages (UCSF, UCSD, MADRC) listed in the reporting; and look for peer‑reviewed publications or press releases about FDA clearance and planned Phase 1 starts. The supplied materials emphasize these data sources as authoritative ways to confirm trial registrations and statuses ^{[3] [5] [9]}.

5. Possible reasons for absence in supplied reporting

The product may be: (a) a consumer supplement or proprietary product without registered clinical trials (available sources do not mention this possibility); (b) a brand/trade name that differs from an investigational drug’s scientific name listed in registries (not found in current reporting); or (c) a small, unpublished pilot study not captured by the databases excerpted here (available sources do not mention any such pilot). The supplied materials show many legitimate trials are publicly registered, which makes an absence notable ^{[1] [2]}.

6. What to demand from any claim of “clinical-trial support”

Insist on the trial registry identifier (e.g., NCT number), trial phase, sponsor, protocol endpoints (memory scales used), sample size, and peer‑reviewed results or FDA communications. The ScienceDaily/GL-II-73 example shows the kind of documentation that accompanies credible translational claims: a journal citation plus a statement of FDA clearance and an anticipated Phase 1 start window ^[8].

Limitations: My review used only the supplied search results; if “Memory Blast” appears in other registries or press releases outside these excerpts, those sources were not available for this analysis (not found in current reporting).