Are there clinical trials showing Memory Blast improves memory, attention, or processing speed?
Executive summary
No clinical trial evidence for a product named "Memory Blast" appears in the documents provided; the sources include randomized trials and registries that demonstrate some cognitive interventions can change memory, attention, or processing-speed measures but do not evaluate a product called Memory Blast [1] [2] [3]. Therefore the claim that "Memory Blast" is proven by clinical trials is unsupported by the supplied reporting; the literature does show that specific, well-defined interventions—computerized visual speed-of-processing training, certain nutraceutical extracts, and structured cognitive exercises—have randomized or controlled data showing domain-specific effects [2] [3] [4].
1. No direct clinical-trial evidence for “Memory Blast” in the provided records
A review of the provided clinical-trial listings and papers turned up a ClinicalTrials.gov record titled "The Memory and Cognitive Performance Study" (NCT04025255) but that registry entry in the supplied material does not describe a commercially branded intervention called Memory Blast or present results for it [1]; none of the peer‑reviewed articles or institutional trial pages provided here mention a product by that name (p1_s1–[5]2). That absence in the supplied sources means there is no fact-based basis, within this reporting, to assert that Memory Blast has been tested in clinical trials.
2. What the clinical-trial literature here does show about processing speed, attention, and working memory
Randomized controlled trials of targeted cognitive training sometimes produce measurable gains in processing speed and related tests: a large RCT of visual speed-of-processing training in middle-aged and older adults randomized 681 participants across four arms and found stabilization or improvement on several cognitive tests compared with an attention-control group, with effect sizes the authors converted into "years" of protection against age-related decline [2]. Separate randomized trials of lifestyle or nutraceutical interventions have reported domain-specific memory gains—for example, a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial reported that Spirulina maxima extract produced significant improvements in visual learning and visual working memory in older adults with mild cognitive impairment [3]. Protocols for randomized trials of everyday cognitive training (reading aloud and simple arithmetic) have also been registered and designed to measure processing speed, attention, and working memory [4].
3. Clinical contexts and limitations: disease populations, endpoints, and transfer
Many of the studies in the clinical literature target specific populations or objective neuropsychological tests rather than broad, daily-life memory claims: an international longitudinal study measured processing speed, broad attention, and working memory trajectories in children treated for medulloblastoma to identify domains vulnerable to decline—findings meant to guide rehabilitation research, not to endorse a general-purpose supplement or app [5] [6]. Likewise, RCTs that show statistically significant changes in neuropsychological scores do not automatically prove broad functional benefits or generalize across ages and conditions; transfer to untested tasks or everyday functioning is a recurring limitation noted across cognitive‑training literature [2] [4].
4. Where to look and what to watch for; hidden agendas and claims
Major academic centers and registries—UCSF Memory and Aging Center, NIH/NIA trial portals, Johns Hopkins, Stanford, and large hospital trial pages—host rigorously designed trials and registered endpoints, and are useful places to confirm whether any branded product has formal clinical evidence [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. Marketers of supplements or cognitive apps sometimes cite small, uncontrolled studies, surrogate endpoints, or non‑peer‑reviewed data; absent a registered, peer‑reviewed randomized trial named for Memory Blast in the provided sources, readers should be skeptical of promotional claims and seek trial identifiers, prespecified endpoints, and published results before accepting efficacy assertions [1] [2].
5. Bottom line and recommended next steps
Within the supplied reporting there are credible clinical trials that show domain‑specific improvements from certain interventions—visual speed‑of‑processing training, Spirulina extract, and structured cognitive exercises—but none of the materials provided document randomized, peer‑reviewed clinical trials demonstrating that a product called Memory Blast improves memory, attention, or processing speed [2] [3] [4] [1]. To verify any claim about Memory Blast, seek a ClinicalTrials.gov identifier or a peer‑reviewed publication explicitly testing that product; absent those, the claim remains unsupported by the evidence provided here.