Primary Research · 2009
Improving effects of the mushroom Yamabushitake (Hericium erinaceus) on mild cognitive impairment: a double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial
Mori K, Inatomi S, Ouchi K, et al. · Phytotherapy Research, 2009
Key finding
16-week RCT in older adults with mild cognitive impairment (n=30) found 3g/day lion's mane significantly improved cognitive function score vs placebo, with effects diminishing 4 weeks post-cessation.
Abstract
PubMed · PMID 18844328 →A double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial was performed on 50- to 80-year-old Japanese men and women diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment in order to examine the efficacy of oral administration of Yamabushitake (Hericium erinaceus), an edible mushroom, for improving cognitive impairment, using a cognitive function scale based on the Revised Hasegawa Dementia Scale (HDS-R). After 2 weeks of preliminary examination, 30 subjects were randomized into two 15-person groups, one of which was given Yamabushitake and the other given a placebo. The subjects of the Yamabushitake group took four 250 mg tablets containing 96% of Yamabushitake dry powder three times a day for 16 weeks. After termination of the intake, the subjects were observed for the next 4 weeks. At weeks 8, 12 and 16 of the trial, the Yamabushitake group showed significantly increased scores on the cognitive function scale compared with the placebo group. The Yamabushitake group's scores increased with the duration of intake, but at week 4 after the termination of the 16 weeks intake, the scores decreased significantly. Laboratory tests showed no adverse effect of Yamabushitake. The results obtained in this study suggest that Yamabushitake is effective in improving mild cognitive impairment.
(c) 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Abstract sourced from PubMed, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine. Displayed in the authors’ own words for context; our critique is in the sections below.
About the supplement
Lion's Mane Mushroom
Dose · mechanism · evidence grade · safety →
Read the full paper
How to read a study like this
The same questions worth asking about any research paper, not just this one. Worth a minute even if you trust the grade.
Who was studied, and do you resemble them?
Supplement effects often depend on baseline status. Vitamin D helps people who are deficient; iron helps people who are anemic. A result in people unlike you may not apply to you.
What was measured, and does it matter in daily life?
A study that shows a blood marker moved isn't the same as a study that shows people felt or functioned better. Ask what the outcome means in practice.
How large was the effect — not just whether it was significant.
'Statistically significant' only means the effect is unlikely to be zero. It doesn't tell you the effect is large enough to notice. Look for effect sizes, not just p-values.
Who paid for the trial, and what did they stand to gain?
Industry-funded trials are several times more likely to report positive results than independent ones. It's not usually fraud — it's subtle design and reporting choices. Weight accordingly.
Has anyone else replicated this?
Single positive trials are hypotheses. Replication by independent groups is what turns a hypothesis into reliable evidence. If the only positive trial is the one you're reading, wait.
Does the dose in the trial match what's being sold?
Supplement marketing routinely cites trials that used 5–10× the dose in the product. If the effective dose was 2 g/day and the capsule has 200 mg, expect roughly no effect.
About this page
Formulate maintains a registry of clinical studies cited across its guides and evidence grades. This page links the study metadata to the content that cites it — one canonical entry per landmark study.
The full citation chain is public so readers can verify claims without hunting through individual guide pages. Browse all cited studies →
Note: Study summaries on this page are editorial interpretations of the research. Always consult the primary source before drawing clinical conclusions.