Has Neurocept published research or clinical trials and when?

1. How Neurocept shows up in the scientific literature — surprising delivery breakthroughs

Neurocept’s name appears in the context of research on intranasal (nose-to-brain) drug delivery, particularly for donepezil formulations aimed at Alzheimer’s treatment. These works describe multiple formulation strategies — lipid, particle, gel, film and spray forms — that report improved brain targeting and bioavailability compared with oral dosing, and they frame intranasal delivery as a way to reduce systemic side effects and enhance therapeutic concentrations in the brain. Those analyses emphasize Neurocept’s development of a donepezil nasal spray and identify improved bioavailability and brain-targeting efficiency as central findings. The documents stress continued technical challenges such as mucociliary clearance and intersubject nasal variability, and they treat the results as promising but not definitive clinical proof ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Neurocept and light therapy — a focused research program on photobiomodulation

Neurocept has publicly documented work on photobiomodulation (PBM) — using red and near-infrared light to influence brain function. The organization’s research summaries catalog studies across stroke, traumatic brain injury, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and psychiatric disorders and identify 650 nm and 810 nm as commonly cited effective wavelengths. The material claims neuroprotective effects, cognitive improvements and cell-survival signaling after PBM and presents PBM as a broadly applicable approach for degenerative and traumatic conditions. These communications read like a research program consolidating preclinical and early clinical PBM findings rather than reporting definitive late-stage clinical trials; they position PBM as an active area of Neurocept-led investigation ^[3].

3. What the company site (and supplement marketing) does — ingredients vs. company trials

Neurocept’s consumer-facing supplement pages emphasize ingredient-level research — for example Ginkgo biloba, Bacopa monnieri, Huperzine A — and cite the broader literature on those ingredients’ cognitive effects. Those pages do not provide primary clinical-trial reports conducted by Neurocept on its branded supplements; the focus is on ingredient evidence and user testimonials rather than company-run randomized controlled trials. The absence of specific published clinical trials for Neurocept-branded supplements is notable given the presence of ingredient-level studies; this gap means marketing claims of being “clinically proven” would need independent verification through citation of peer-reviewed Neurocept trial reports, which the provided source does not supply ^[4].

4. Confusing names and regulatory red flags — why caution is warranted

Regulatory actions against other companies marketing similarly named products have appeared in the record: Federal Trade Commission complaints targeted marketers of supplements with names resembling Neurocept (e.g., Neurocet), alleging deceptive clinical claims and resulting in settlements that restrict unsubstantiated health claims. These FTC actions underscore a broader marketplace risk where marketing language can outpace evidence, and they highlight why independent, peer-reviewed clinical trials and transparent trial registries matter when firms claim clinical validation. The presence of such regulatory activity in adjacent product marketing does not prove wrongdoing by Neurocept, but it raises a vigilance signal for consumers and clinicians evaluating supplement claims ^{[5] [6]}.

5. Bottom line — published science exists, but clinical-trial evidence for branded supplements is thin

The available materials confirm that Neurocept investigators have published on drug-delivery innovations (intranasal donepezil) and on photobiomodulation, positioning the company within active translational research. However, there is no clear, dated, peer-reviewed record in the provided set demonstrating randomized controlled trials of Neurocept-branded dietary supplements; marketing pages rely on ingredient literature rather than primary company trial data. Given the regulatory environment and the technical caveats noted in formulation and PBM literature, the prudent interpretation is that Neurocept has contributed publishable research to niche scientific topics, but independent verification of company-run clinical trials specifically validating its consumer products is not provided in these documents ^{[1] [3] [4]}.

If you want, I can locate and summarize specific peer-reviewed publications and trial registrations attributed to Neurocept (with dates and journal names) or search trial registries for Neurocept-sponsored trials to confirm the presence or absence of registered randomized clinical trials.