CHAMGAP
APPROVEDReviewed and approved by the Chamgap Editorial Team (2026-07-18). The draft was written by AI, the existence of all 2 cited sources was verified at the original page, and the verdict passed blind grading and adversarial audit. Methodology v0.6.
Verdict No. 528 · Search date 2026-07-18 · Methodology v0.6

PLAG,
does it really help with Enhanced immune function in healthy adults?

30-Second Summary
C
Evidence Grade C · 40 · Safety caution
Changes in immune markers are not the same as improved defense against infections
What the
research shows
A four-week randomized double-blind trial of PLAG at 1 g/day found changes in IL-4, IL-6, and B-cell proliferation among 49 analyzed participants, while IL-2 and interferon-gamma were unchanged. These were stimulated peripheral-blood-cell markers, not fewer infections, better vaccine responses, or improved disease defense. The evidence is a single individually recognized product study centered on Enzychem, yielding C with 43 points.
What the
ads claim
Marketing can turn cytokine and immune-cell changes into stronger defense against viruses or bacteria, fewer colds, or boosted immunity. The healthy-adult trial measured none of these clinical outcomes.
*

Useful facts when choosing a product

  • The healthy-adult trial and the representative Korean individually recognized ingredient dose use 1 g/day of PLAG.
  • Korean products should be checked for the recognized ingredient name, daily PLAG content, and directions.
  • Higher EC-18 doses studied in oncology are a different efficacy axis from food-supplement use.
  • The four-week trial reported no major safety problem, but long-term, pregnancy, lactation, autoimmune-disease, and immunosuppressive-treatment data are insufficient.
Gap Measurement · Verdict 528 · C 40
What advertising claims
What independent, higher-quality research supports
△ GAP
01

What the research actually shows

The 2015 Hwang trial gave adults PLAG 500 mg twice daily or soybean-oil placebo for four weeks. The final analysis included 27 PLAG and 22 placebo participants. IL-4 and IL-6 production and B-cell proliferation decreased, whereas IL-2 and interferon-gamma were unchanged. Infection incidence was not an endpoint. Phase 2 evidence for EC-18 in chemoradiation-induced oral mucositis involves patients, higher doses, and a different therapeutic objective and cannot establish general immune enhancement in healthy adults.

02

Why this is classified as C (40)

A human RCT prevents a D rating, but the evidence is a single small manufacturer-linked trial with mixed immune-marker outcomes and no infection defense. The surrogate and proprietary-ingredient rules support low C with 43 points.

Counterpoint. PLAG may modulate excessive inflammation rather than simply increase immunity, but that is a different claim from infection defense in healthy adults.

Rejudgment record. New verdict — A four-week trial of PLAG at 1 g/day changed selected peripheral-blood-cell markers, but only 49 participants were analyzed, results were mixed and manufacturer-linked, and no infection-defense endpoint was measured

Sub-claim grades by effect

This ingredient is marketed for several effects. A single overall grade blends strong and weak claims together, so each effect is graded separately here. The overall grade reflects the strongest disconfirming or core claim.

Effect (sub-claim)GradeBasis
Changes in immune-cell and cytokine markersCOnly selected markers changed in a manufacturer-linked final analysis of 49 participants; IL-2 and interferon-gamma were unchanged.
Reduced infections or improved clinical infection defense?No PLAG efficacy trial assessing infection incidence, severity, or vaccine response in healthy adults was found.

Cross-check — Codex and Claude

This verdict was drafted by Codex through literature review and source-existence checks, cross-checked through blind grading and adversarial audit, and settled by reapplying the methodology boundary rules. Cases with split grades were resolved through rejudgment.
03

Evidence Table

StudyDesignSampleFundingEndpointResultWeight
Hwang HJ et al. 2015Randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial49Enzychem supplied products; several coauthors were Enzychem employeesPeripheral-blood-cell cytokines, B- and T-cell proliferation, and natural-killer activityIL-4, IL-6, and B-cell proliferation changed; IL-2 and interferon-gamma did not; infections were not measured.Key
Henson C et al. 2022Phase 2 conference report in chemoradiation-induced oral mucositisSponsored by EnzychemIncidence and duration of severe oral mucositisA positive signal on a separate therapeutic axis, not evidence of infection defense in healthy adults.Different axis
§

Receipt — 2 References

All 2 cited sources were verified for existence at the original page (as of 2026-07-18).

Hwang HJ, Son KY, Han YH, et al. Effect of 1-palmitoyl-2-linoleoyl-3-acetyl-rac-glycerol on Immune Functions in Healthy Adults in a Randomized Controlled Trial. Immune Netw. 2015;15(3):150-160. PMID: 26140047. DOI: 10.4110/in.2015.15.3.150.
checked
Henson C, Clayburgh D, Lee AS, et al. Phase 2, randomized, double-blind trial of EC-18 versus placebo to mitigate the development and time course of oral mucositis from concomitant chemoradiation for head and neck cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2022;40(Suppl 16):12106. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2022.40.16_suppl.12106.
checked
Draft and rewrite: Codex (AI) · Verification: Codex blind grading and adversarial audit · Final adjudication: Claude
Reviewed and approved: Chamgap Editorial Team · Approval date: 2026-07-18 · Corrections: none

Cite this verdict

PLAG x enhanced immune function in healthy adults Evidence Grade C card
[Chamgap] PLAG x enhanced immune function in healthy adults — Evidence Grade C·40. 2 cited sources checked. Source: https://chamgap.com/en/verdicts/immunity/plag-healthy-adult-immune-function/ · CC BY 4.0

CC BY 4.0 — free to use with attribution; do not distort grades, numbers, or verdict meaning.

!

What this document does and does not do

Chamgap is an information source. It reports what research has and has not confirmed; it does not tell readers what to take or buy. That decision belongs to readers and, when needed, medical or legal professionals. This verdict reflects literature available up to the search date and may change as new research appears. Nothing here is medical advice.