Fact check: Which institutions are conducting the Mind Hero clinical trials?

1. What the direct claim says — two institutions named as Mind Hero sites

The clearest, most direct claim identifying institutions conducting the Mind Hero clinical trials appears in a case study that lists the Universidade Católica Portuguesa, Faculty of Education and Psychology, Research Centre for Human Development (Porto, Portugal) and Stanford University (Stanford, CA, USA) as conducting the Mind Hero study. That source frames the work as a case study with educational and psychological researchers involved, implying institutional leadership or at least site involvement in the Mind Hero activity ^[1]. This is the only source among the three that explicitly ties the Mind Hero name to specific institutions, making it the primary piece of evidence in the set.

2. Where the other sources differ — two protocols that omit Mind Hero

Two protocol documents referenced other clinical or pilot trial sites but make no mention of Mind Hero, instead detailing trials at Korea University Guro Hospital and Korea University College of Medicine in Seoul, and at the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service Sant Joan de Déu Terres de Lleida in Spain. These documents describe distinct interventions (a smart mental health intervention "inMind" and a combined mindfulness–cognitive training pilot, respectively) and do not corroborate the Universidad Católica/Stanford attribution for Mind Hero, suggesting they relate to different studies or interventions despite thematic overlap ^{[2] [3]}.

3. Reconciling the discrepancy — different studies, similar themes

The simplest reconciliation is that the three documents describe separate but thematically related research projects: one uses the Mind Hero label and two use other study names. All three operate in the mental-health/mindfulness space, which leads to potential confusion when cross-referencing institutional attributions. The absence of the Mind Hero name in the Korea and Lleida protocols means those institutions cannot be reliably listed as Mind Hero sites based on the available materials, and the positive identification of Porto and Stanford rests solely on the single case study ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

4. Assessing evidence strength — single-source identification versus non-mentions

From an evidentiary standpoint, the claim that Universidade Católica Portuguesa and Stanford University are conducting Mind Hero trials is supported by one source only, which reduces confidence if treated in isolation. Conversely, the Korea and Lleida documents actively document trials but explicitly omit any Mind Hero reference, which is strong evidence those sites are not part of Mind Hero unless another linking document exists. The result is contradictory signals: one positive attribution and two absence-of-evidence signals that must be resolved with additional documentation ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

5. Potential reasons for naming and attribution gaps

There are several plausible, evidence-consistent explanations for the mismatch: institutions may run similar interventions under different project names; Mind Hero could be a localized label used in the Porto/Stanford collaboration while other trials use distinct titles; or some documents may be preliminary protocols that predate naming decisions. None of these scenarios can be confirmed with the current sources, and resolving them requires project registries, trial IDs, or institutional trial listings that explicitly connect the different study names to a single Mind Hero program ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

6. What would provide definitive confirmation — registry entries and institutional notices

To move from tentative to definitive attribution, seek clinical-trial registry entries, institutional press releases, IRB approvals, or published protocols that match study identifiers (e.g., trial registration numbers) across documents. The present corpus lacks such cross-linking: the Porto/Stanford case study is the only document explicitly using the Mind Hero name, while the other protocols furnish institutional detail without that label. Therefore, current evidence supports listing Porto and Stanford as linked to Mind Hero only provisionally, pending registry or institutional confirmation ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

7. Bottom line and recommended next steps for verification

Based on the provided materials, the supported claim is that the Universidade Católica Portuguesa (Porto) and Stanford University (Stanford) are associated with a Mind Hero study; other institutions cited in the corpus conduct related mental-health trials but are not shown to be part of Mind Hero. To confirm or refute these attributions, retrieve trial registration records, institutional trial pages, or matching protocol supplements that explicitly tie the Mind Hero name to specific trial IDs or ethics approvals. Without that corroboration, any institutional list for Mind Hero should be presented as provisional and sourced to the single explicit document ^{[1] [2] [3]}.