What recent publications or clinical trials list neurocept investigators as authors?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
I found no peer‑reviewed publications or registered clinical trials in the supplied results that explicitly list “Neurocept investigators” as authors or investigators; available sources instead show consumer/press coverage of a supplement named Neurocept and a range of unrelated neuroscience journals and clinical‑trial roundups [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. The search results contain multiple marketing/press pieces about Neurocept [1] [2] [6] [3] [7] but do not connect any named investigators to clinical trials or academic authorship in the indexed scientific literature provided here (available sources do not mention listing Neurocept investigators as authors).
1. What the sources actually show: press and marketing, not trial authorship
Several results in the set are consumer news items, affiliate review pages, and press releases that mention a product called Neurocept in the context of brain‑health supplements and market trends (The Manila Times summary of a GlobeNewswire release, a Newswire affiliate review, and multiple GlobeNewswire/press items) [1] [2] [6] [3] [7]. Those pieces treat Neurocept as a dietary supplement and explicitly avoid clinical efficacy claims or positioning it as a medical treatment [7]. None of those press/marketing items list investigators or academic authorship tying Neurocept to clinical trials in peer‑reviewed journals (available sources do not mention such authorship).
2. What the academic and clinical sources cover in the results
The set includes legitimate neuroscience journals and clinical‑trial reporting hubs — for example Nature Communications/Nature’s clinical trials collection, Neurotherapeutics listings and issues, Frontiers articles, and a roundup of Alzheimer’s drug development — but none of these retrieved items show an article authored by “Neurocept investigators” or a trial registration naming Neurocept‑linked investigators in the supplied snippets [4] [8] [9] [5] [10]. The presence of these journals in the results indicates relevant research avenues exist, but the current reporting does not connect them to Neurocept authorship (available sources do not mention a link).
3. Possible reasons you saw no investigator‑byline matches in this set
The search results skew heavily toward consumer marketing and generalized neuroscience journalism rather than to PubMed/ClinicalTrials.gov entries or specific journal bylines. Press releases and affiliate review sites commonly appear in web searches for product names and can mask the presence of academic outputs unless you query academic databases directly (examples here: Newswire, GlobeNewswire, affiliate review) [2] [6] [3] [1]. The supplied academic items are broad or thematic (e.g., clinical trial collections, journal issue pages) and would require article‑level searches to surface any authorship that might include investigators linked to Neurocept [5] [4].
4. What would count as evidence of Neurocept investigators as authors — and what’s missing
Conclusive evidence would be: (a) a peer‑reviewed article or conference abstract listing named investigators who identify affiliation with Neurocept or the company behind it, or (b) a registered clinical trial record (ClinicalTrials.gov or equivalent) listing site investigators tied to Neurocept as sponsor or investigational product. The supplied materials include neither a clinical‑trial registration with Neurocept nor a peer‑reviewed paper with Neurocept investigators on the byline (available sources do not mention a clinicaltrials.gov record or journal article with Neurocept investigators).
5. Competing perspectives and hidden agendas in the available material
Press/affiliate pieces present Neurocept as a market product and emphasize ingredient transparency and consumer trends [1] [2] [6] [7]. Those outlets have incentives to promote products or drive traffic (affiliate links and GlobeNewswire placements are explicit) and are not substitutes for independent clinical evidence [2] [6]. By contrast, the academic sources and clinical‑trial roundups in the results are editorially focused on peer review and trial reporting [4] [5] [9], but none of those items here tie back to Neurocept — showing a divide between marketing narratives and scholarly literature in this dataset.
6. Specific next steps I would recommend to confirm investigators/authorship
Search academic databases (PubMed, Scopus) and ClinicalTrials.gov for the keyword “Neurocept” plus likely corporate developer names; check DOI and author lists in journal issue indexes (Nature, Neurotherapeutics, Frontiers) for any article with Neurocept or the manufacturer in the methods or acknowledgments (the provided Nature/Neurotherapeutics indexes show where such items would typically appear, but no matching article is in this collection) [8] [4] [5]. Also verify company registry or press releases for clinical‑trial identifiers; current press pieces explicitly note the product’s dietary‑supplement framing and do not claim clinical trial authorship [7] [3].
Limitations: This analysis is strictly limited to the supplied search results. If you want, I will run focused searches of PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, and CrossRef for “Neurocept” and for probable manufacturer names to locate any academic authorship or trial registrations not present in the current set.