{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019583843329253364, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004895960832313341, 'mean_word_length': 5.816666666666666, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Direct-to-Consumer Marketing of Dietary Supplements for Dementia: An Example of Unhealthy Commerce of Neuroscience

accounted for in surveys and similar measures of neuroenhancement prevalence. While Lucke and colleagues (2011) are accurate in recognizing the hype that can sometimes inflate the presumed effect of cognitive-enhancing drugs, there are numerous potent neuroenhancing substances. Many of these are easily obtainable, and worthy of prudence in both their use and relevant bioethical discourse. Future surveys that aim to measure prevalence of neuroenhancement should include more discrete definitions of cognitive stimulants to better assess prevalence. Moreover, studies assessing shortand long-term effects of cognitive-enhancing drugs are necessary to elucidate the social impact of these substances.