What subsequent randomized trials or meta-analyses have been published on phosphatidylserine and cognitive outcomes since FDA’s 2003 decision?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Since the FDA’s 2003 consumer alert and restrictions around bovine-derived phosphatidylserine, the clinical literature has continued with randomized trials and at least one modern systematic review/meta-analysis; those trials are heterogeneous in source material (soy vs. bovine remnants historically, often combined with omega-3s), sizes and endpoints, and the pooled evidence points to at best modest, inconsistent cognitive effects with important caveats about study quality and composition [1] [2] [3].
1. What kinds of randomized trials appeared after 2003 and what did they test?
Randomized, double‑blind, placebo‑controlled trials published since 2003 include studies of soybean‑derived PS in older adults with memory complaints and mild cognitive impairment (MCI), trials that combined PS with omega‑3 fatty acids or other nutrients, and short‑term experimental studies looking at stress‑related cortical activity; examples in the contemporary literature are a soybean‑PS RCT in elderly Japanese subjects (double‑blind randomized controlled design reported in the clinical literature) and later combination‑product trials including a 2010 trial of PS containing omega‑3s and a 2023 randomized study that tested a formulation of whole coffee cherry extract plus PS in middle‑aged adults with self‑perceived memory problems [1] [3] [4]. More recent large, long follow‑up randomized work includes a 12‑month, 190‑participant RCT in Chinese older adults with MCI testing a supplement containing PS plus α‑linolenic acid (published 2024/2025) and reporting improvements in several cognitive domains, notably short‑term memory [5] [6].
2. What do the randomized trials show, in plain terms?
The randomized trials give a mixed picture: some report small cognitive benefits in targeted groups (non‑demented elderly with subjective memory complaints or early MCI), while others find no effect — for example, a well‑designed trial of soybean‑derived PS at 300–600 mg/day found no cognitive benefit over 12 weeks [7] [8]. Combination products that include PS plus omega‑3 fatty acids or other botanicals sometimes report positive signals (memory, attention, or electrophysiological changes) but interpretation is complicated because it is unclear whether PS, the omega‑3 component, or their interaction drives any effect [3] [9] [4].
3. What have systematic reviews and meta‑analyses concluded?
A recent systematic review and meta‑analysis of PS effects in elderly populations synthesized randomized trials and pre‑post studies and identified modest potential benefits for some cognitive outcomes but emphasized heterogeneity among trials and concerns about study comparability and bias; the review included five randomized trials among nine total studies and noted variable PS preparations and differing outcome measures [10] [2]. The Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation summary likewise described a 2022 meta‑analysis that suggested possible memory benefits but cautioned that trials differed substantially in PS composition and length, limiting firm conclusions [3].
4. Key methodological caveats that shape interpretation
Across the post‑2003 literature, three recurring limitations undermine confidence in an unequivocal benefit: trials often use different PS sources or combine PS with omega‑3s or other ingredients (confounding attribution), sample sizes and follow‑up durations are variable (short trials may miss sustained effects), and risk‑of‑bias and heterogeneity in outcome measures limit pooling [3] [2] [11]. Systematic reviewers explicitly flag that positive trials coexist with null trials and that small positive effects could reflect components other than PS or publication/selection biases [11] [2].
5. Bottom line and where reporting diverges from nuance
The post‑2003 randomized evidence and at least one modern meta‑analysis show that phosphatidylserine — usually in soy‑derived or combination formulations — can produce modest cognitive signals in some populations (subjective memory complaints, MCI), but the effects are inconsistent, sometimes absent, and frequently confounded by co‑ingredients [5] [8] [3] [2]. Reporting that states simply “PS improves cognition” over‑simplifies heterogeneous trials; conversely, blanket dismissal ignores that recent, larger RCTs (e.g., the 12‑month MCI trial) have reported positive domain‑specific findings that merit further, well‑controlled replication [6] [5].