Rolziracetam (CI-911) is an experimental cyclic-imide compound investigated in cognition-related drug discovery. The research below distinguishes observed findings from interpretation.[1.1]
Selected animal research: Chemical-series experiments included animal amnesia tests and a delayed-response task in aged rhesus monkeys. The abstract does not report a usable dose or sample size. Rolziracetam improved performance in the monkey delayed-response task and was selected for subsequent human evaluation. Selection for human evaluation is not a human efficacy result. The reviewed abstract does not establish a clinical regimen or human safety. Selection for human evaluation is not a human efficacy result. The reviewed abstract does not establish a clinical regimen or human safety. A verified studied dose has not yet been added to this reading note.[2.1]
Studied methods, not dosing advice. Selected evidence, not a complete literature review or formal quality appraisal.
No completed study summaries are linked to this compound page yet. This is a coverage gap on PED Evidence, not evidence that human studies or other research do not exist.
Chemical-series experiments included animal amnesia tests and a delayed-response task in aged rhesus monkeys. The abstract does not report a usable dose or sample size.
Demonstrated findings
Rolziracetam improved performance in the monkey delayed-response task and was selected for subsequent human evaluation.
Limitations & adverse findings
Selection for human evaluation is not a human efficacy result. The reviewed abstract does not establish a clinical regimen or human safety.
What might this mean? · interpretation
These findings apply to the population and methods described above.
What might this mean, and what would change the interpretation?
Selection for human evaluation is not a human efficacy result. The reviewed abstract does not establish a clinical regimen or human safety.
What would clarify this: Controlled human safety and efficacy research would be needed before clinical conclusions.
Findings reviewed · abstract
Checked Sep 23, 2026 against the linked abstract. This reading note is not a formal risk-of-bias appraisal.
More about Rolziracetam: identity, safety & reference details
Small moleculeBrain & cognition
Primary research area
Neurological & cognitive research
Regulatory status
See compound-specific sources
Evidence level
Animal · preclinical research
Primary mechanism
See the source-linked compound overview
Reference profile available · Coverage varies by section
Also known as CI-911
What has been observed?
Selected source-linked reading notes, not the complete literature or a pooled conclusion.
Animal · Abstract reviewed
Rolziracetam: what does this study show?
Chemical-series experiments included animal amnesia tests and a delayed-response task in aged rhesus monkeys. The abstract does not report a usable dose or sample size.
Rolziracetam improved performance in the monkey delayed-response task and was selected for subsequent human evaluation.
Limits & adverse findings: Selection for human evaluation is not a human efficacy result. The reviewed abstract does not establish a clinical regimen or human safety. Selection for human evaluation is not a human efficacy result. The reviewed abstract does not establish a clinical regimen or human safety.
Animal study: Selection for human evaluation is not a human efficacy result. The reviewed abstract does not establish a clinical regimen or human safety. Source
Explore safety questions by system
These are literature filters, not claims that this compound causes each effect. A keyword match is not a confirmed adverse reaction.
Interactions, rare harms, long-term effects and reversibility require separate evidence. Do not infer they are absent when the sources here do not address them.
Identity, names & formulations
Canonical compound: Rolziracetam · rolziracetam
Searchable names: CI-911
Names share a parent research page. Different esters, salts, routes and brands are not assumed to have the same half-life, indication or exposure.
Combination evidence stays attached to the studied combination. It is not automatically assigned to each ingredient.
Understand the evidence types
Read the model and design first, then the population, outcome and limitations. These categories describe evidence, not a best-compound ranking.
Randomized human trials
Compare assigned interventions. Randomization does not by itself establish low bias or relevance to every population.
Controlled human studies
Use a comparison group; allocation and confounding still matter.
Prospective human research
Follows participants forward. It may be observational or interventional, so this is not a separate quality grade.
Observational human research
Describes associations. Confounding can explain differences.
Case reports and series
Useful for unusual events and safety signals, not reliable rates or effect sizes.
Animal research
Can test biology and function in a living model. Human exposure, benefit and safety remain separate questions.
Cell and tissue research
Tests responses in a preparation, including human-derived cells. It is not a human participant trial.
Mechanistic and computational evidence
Helps explain or predict a pathway; predictions need experimental and clinical testing.
Anecdotal reports
Self-reported experiences can generate questions. Product identity, selection bias and other interventions may be uncontrolled.
Systematic reviews synthesize studies and depend on their quality. Preprint status and abstract versus full-paper reading are separate labels. Citation popularity measures attention, not reliability. A study summary is not a formal quality appraisal.
Reference facts checked 2026-09-23. Source scope is listed above; this is not a formal quality appraisal. See each label for full prescribing information.