← Compound index
COMPOUND RECORD / BEMITIL

BemitilБемитил

PerformanceRecovery
Source linked
Research profile — evidence review incomplete. Topic tags are research navigation, not indications or recommendations. Source access does not establish effectiveness or safety.
01 / OVERVIEW

What is it?

A synthetic benzimidazole compound, also known as bemethyl or Metaprot. It is studied as an actoprotector: a compound investigated for maintaining work capacity under demanding conditions.

Identity / background source ↗

Research context

A research entry linked to a 1991 voyage study and a Pinealon animal comparison using Metaprot. Historical performance findings do not establish protection from occupational hazards.

Working classification
Actoprotector
Research collection
Actoprotection & occupational pharmacology · editorial grouping
Institutional provenance
Not established for this compound record
Last evidence review
Full evidence review pending; source-check scope appears with each publication below.
02 / EVIDENCE DIMENSIONS

What do we know?

Human research
—Historical human comparison; methods review incomplete
Study methods
—Abstract + animal research
Independent replication
—Not assessed
Source access
—Russian monograph attachment recovered; author-upload page linked
Safety evidence
—Not assessed

These are independent review fields, not a rating. Missing evidence in this starter does not mean no research exists.

03 / SOURCE TRAIL

Linked sources

Separate personal WHOOP observation ↗ — uncontrolled n=1 data; not included as clinical evidence.

Explore the research map and unresolved leads ↗

1991Clinical trial / comparisonEnglish abstract

Efficiency of preventive use of bemethyl during long-term voyages

V. S. Novikov · Gig Sanit. (3):37–39

The abstract reports changes in nonspecific-defense measures, operator working ability, and morbidity during prolonged voyages.

Population / setting
Shipboard / long-voyage setting; sample size not entered from this abstract
What was checked
PubMed record and English abstract checked. Clinical-trial indexing confirmed; control and allocation details require full-text review.
Limitations & review scope
  • The abstract does not provide effect sizes or enough design detail for appraisal.
  • Prior conversation described a full-text cohort; those numbers are not carried over without rechecking that document.
  • No conclusion about toxic-exposure protection, sleep-deprived safety, or long-term use follows.

Source checked 2026-09-27. This is a source-linked record, not a completed evidence review.

Read the source ↗
2015Animal / experimentalRussian full text

Investigation of the actoprotective properties of the tripeptide Pinealon

G. S. Belyaeva, O. K. Davydova, A. I. Erofeev, V. A. Maydan, G. A. Ryzhak, T. V. Siretskaya, V. Kh. Khavinson · Biotekhnosfera. 2(38):25–31

The report compares treadmill performance after a two-week course and describes persistence of a performance signal after Pinealon cessation.

Population / setting
Rats; treadmill-to-exhaustion comparison with Metaprot
What was checked
Original Russian PDF located; title, opening summary, and study setting checked. Full methodological appraisal pending.
Limitations & review scope
  • Animal endurance is not human cognitive performance, sleep, or occupational safety.
  • No numerical effect estimate is entered before table-level review.
  • The original PDF identifies issue 2(38); some later bibliographies give conflicting issue numbers.

Source checked 2026-09-27. This is a source-linked record, not a completed evidence review.

Read the source ↗
2019Human comparative studyRussian full text

Pirabel during prolonged physical work and recovery — monograph section 6.2

S. V. Okovityi, E. B. Shustov, V. Ts. Bolotova · Work Capacity, Fatigue, Correction. Knorus; section 6.2, pp. 184–189

The book describes a double-blind comparison including placebo, Bemitil, and Pirabel, with performance and recovery measures. It reports endpoint-specific differences, not universal improvement.

Population / setting
78 healthy volunteers aged 18–25, divided into eight groups; six-hour physical-load model
What was checked
Recovered 330-page attachment: title page and section text checked; page 184 visually inspected. Full independent methods review not completed.
Limitations & review scope
  • Group allocation is described as equivalent groups; randomization has not been established.
  • No piracetam-only group appears in the listed comparison, so this cannot establish pharmacological synergy.
  • A monograph report is not independent replication; original cited reports require retrieval.
  • Young volunteers performing controlled physical work do not establish effects on sleep, watchkeeping, or toxic-exposure safety.

Source checked 2026-09-27. This is a source-linked record, not a completed evidence review.

Read the source ↗

Explore related historical combinations ↗

Browse bibliography & PDFs ↗