Has memoblast been referenced in recent scientific literature or patents?
Executive summary
There is no evidence in the supplied reporting or patent records that a molecule, drug, company product or intellectual property formally named “memoblast” appears in peer‑reviewed scientific literature or in the patent documents included in the search results; what the sources do show are multiple consumer-facing supplements and marketing sites using the name MemoBlast/Memo Blast and an extensive, unrelated patent portfolio for Mesoblast, a stem‑cell company (consumer sites: [1]; Mesoblast patents: p2_s1). Available sources do not mention a scientific compound or patent filings for “memoblast.”
1. What the records actually contain: consumer supplements and marketing copy
The search returns several commercial and review pages for a memory‑support supplement marketed as MemoBlast or Memo Blast — including official product sites and reviews that make performance claims about memory, focus and “scientifically‑backed” ingredient blends (memoblast.net, memoblast.org, memoblast.co, inmybowl.com) — but these are promotional or secondary sources rather than primary scientific literature or patent filings [1] [2] [3] [4].
2. No peer‑reviewed or clinical‑trial literature identified for “memoblast”
Among the scientific articles in the provided set there is no peer‑reviewed paper that studies a compound or therapeutic named “memoblast.” The only clinical paper in the results discusses Memo® (a different natural formula) and royal jelly in the context of mild cognitive impairment, not a product or molecule called “memoblast” [5]. Available sources do not mention a peer‑reviewed article or clinical trial for “memoblast.”
3. Patents and corporate IP returned are about Mesoblast, not “memoblast”
The patent and corporate IP results overwhelmingly concern Mesoblast Limited’s mesenchymal cell technologies and show an extensive patent estate (around 1,000 patents/applications) covering mesenchymal lineage cell compositions and methods [6] [7] [8]. None of the supplied patent summaries or listings name “memoblast” as a patented compound or assignee; they instead reference Mesoblast’s cellular products such as rexlemestrocel‑L, remestemcel‑L and MPC technologies [6] [9]. Available sources do not mention “memoblast” in Mesoblast’s IP materials.
4. Conflicting signal: marketing claims versus investigative skepticism
Some consumer review sites and vendor pages present MemoBlast as “scientifically‑backed” and effective for cognitive enhancement [2] [3]. In contrast, at least one watchdog review in the results labels MemoBlast’s marketing as unsupported and asserts “no published clinical studies supporting MemoBlast,” noting questionable claims about an alleged inventor and a marketing gimmick (“elephant trick”) [10]. Readers should treat promotional pages as marketing and consult primary literature — which is not present in the supplied set — before accepting clinical claims [2] [10].
5. How to interpret the absence of evidence in these results
The supplied corpus shows product web pages, promotional reviews and a robust unrelated IP portfolio for Mesoblast, but no scientific papers or patent filings for an entity called “memoblast.” That absence in these results does not prove “memoblast” does not exist elsewhere; it means the current reporting does not contain a scientific reference or patent record for that specific name. The closest matches are commercial MemoBlast pages [1] [2] and Mesoblast’s extensive patents [6] [7].
6. Practical next steps for verification
To resolve the question decisively, search primary sources not included here: databases of peer‑reviewed journals (PubMed, Web of Science), patent databases (USPTO, EPO, Google Patents) and ClinicalTrials.gov for the exact term “memoblast” and plausible variants (MemoBlast, Memo Blast). The present set suggests start points: examine MemoBlast’s claims against clinical registries (no clinical studies found in these supplied pages; p1_s5) and search Mesoblast’s patent listings directly if the intent was to link “Memoblast” to that company (Mesoblast’s portfolio is documented here but does not reference “memoblast” in the supplied excerpts; p2_s1).
Limitations: this analysis strictly uses the provided search results. If you want, I can run targeted searches of PubMed, Google Patents and ClinicalTrials.gov for the exact terms “memoblast,” “MemoBlast,” and close variants and report back with direct citations.