Conversational interaction

5 papers5 findings

C, W, M, H: cells, worms or flies, mice, humans. Dark: independent labs found the same change there. Light: one lab or one study. Outline: nothing yet.

Labs are independent when their papers share no last author and no institution.

Against: findings that point the other way from most findings on the same outcome.

On aging: the drug’s trials ARN judged to be about aging, of every trial that tests it for any use.

No results posted: trials that ended more than a year ago with no results on ClinicalTrials.gov and no paper in ARN’s record.

Company ties: findings with an author at a company, or from a paper whose competing-interests statement declares ties to one.

2 independent labs in 1 country

Human trial4

Outcomes

Mean semantic noise

downin humans2

2 studies

Conversational interaction decreases mean semantic noise in humans (baseline 2.09 ± 0.34 to M6 1.81 ± 0.47, p = 0.009).
“In the MCI group, baseline MSN was significantly higher than M6 MSN (paired t-test: p = 0.009)”
Human trialin participants with mild cognitive impairment6 months
Changes in Conversational Pattern as a Clinical Trial Outcome Using the I-CONECT Data
GSA 2025 abstract31 Dec 2025
Conversational interaction decreases mean semantic noise in humans (baseline: 2.09 ± 0.34 vs M6: 1.81 ± 0.47, p = 0.009).
“In the MCI group, baseline MSN was significantly higher than M6 MSN ( p = 0.009)”
Human trialin MCI group6 months
Changes in conversational pattern as a clinical trial outcome using the I‐CONECT data
AAIC 2025 abstract25 Dec 2025