This article exhibits significant issues related to its scientific rigor and credibility, with discrepancies between claims and supporting references being particularly concerning. Several assertions, such as the effectiveness of neuroplasticity interventions and innovative therapeutic approaches, are inadequately substantiated by the cited studies, suggesting potential overstatement. The methodology is vaguely described, lacking critical details about experimental designs, sample sizes, and statistical analyses, which undermines the reproducibility and reliability of the findings. Furthermore, the article selectively highlights evidence that supports its hypotheses while omitting contradictory data, which raises concerns about bias in data interpretation. The absence of raw data or supplementary materials further restricts independent verification of the results. These flaws are compounded by broad, unsubstantiated conclusions that overgeneralize the findings and fail to acknowledge their limitations. Addressing these issues requires thorough revision to align claims with evidence, enhance methodological transparency, and ensure balanced data reporting; failure to do so could significantly undermine the scientific validity of the work.
