CHAMGAP
MethodologyVerdictsExplanations (KO)Evidence CheckCitation KitMonitoring

Aged garlic extract liquid 2.4 mL/day × Prevention of colorectal-adenoma recurrence

Select a review item to see its details.
Required evidence, verification status and materials actually read
ItemAVerification statusBReading scopeCReview itemDCurrent findingsEWhy unverifiedFRequired materials and conditionsGFurther research
1 Met Full text not readStored summary read N01 · Evidence conditionWhich adenoma outcome is compared with what?Required
The original claim is prevention of colorectal-adenoma recurrence, but the retained material concerns only participants with new adenomas in a trial in which smaller lesions could remain.
S1
The retained question and excluded extensions were checked; recurrence or cancer-prevention efficacy was not confirmed.
Prior adenomas, extent of lesion removal, high-dose/active low-dose AGE and the 0~12-month participant endpoint
A separate study directly measuring the relevant population and endpoint for recurrence after complete removal or colorectal cancer
2 Partly verified Full text not readStored summary read N02 · Evidence conditionWhich adults with prior adenomas were included?Required
A record of 51 adults with prior adenomas exists. Age, baseline risk, setting and group-specific selection characteristics are not established in the current summary.
S1
The population label is checked, but detailed eligibility, representativeness and group characteristics remain unverified.
Diagnosis, age, baseline risk, eligibility/exclusions, care setting and group characteristics
A prespecified comparison stratified by baseline lesions and risk; first check the existing selection table
3 Partly verified Full text not readStored summary read N03 · Evidence conditionCould smaller lesions have remained?Required
The record states that only lesions larger than 5 mm were removed and smaller lesions could remain. A matching table of baseline and follow-up lesions is absent.
S1
The limitation in removal extent is checked, but new-versus-residual identification for individual lesions and complete removal remain unverified.
Initial removal size threshold, baseline lesion list, completeness of removal and identification of new lesions
A recurrence study prespecifying confirmation of complete removal and lesion matching
4 Partly verified Full text not readStored summary read N04 · Evidence conditionWhat were the specifications of the AGE capsules actually administered?Required
Liquid-equivalent AGE capsules and oral administration are stated. SAC and dry-matter equivalents are unverified in the original material.
S1
The formulation and route are named, but actual product specifications and component quantities remain unverified.
Aged extract, liquid-equivalent capsules, manufacture/batch, SAC and dry-matter equivalents, and route
A replication using a specification-verified preparation; first obtain the existing product specifications
5 Partly verified Full text not readStored summary read N05 · Evidence conditionWere actual intakes of 2.4 mL and 0.16 mL checked?Required
High-dose 2.4 mL/day versus low-dose 0.16 mL/day is recorded. Frequency, actual intake and component quantities are unverified.
S1
A nominal dose comparison exists, but actual exposure and a general optimal dose remain unverified.
Group nominal liquid-equivalent quantities, frequency, adherence, actual intake and product content
A dose comparison prospectively tracking component quantities and adherence
6 Met Full text not readStored summary read N06 · Evidence conditionWas the comparator placebo or active low-dose AGE?Required
The comparator was low-dose AGE 0.16 mL/day. The original text describes it as an active low-dose control.
S1
The actual comparison structure is preserved; this does not establish an effect versus placebo or inactivity of the low dose.
Comparator preparation, components, dose, placebo/no-treatment status and comparison direction
For a placebo question, a direct comparison of the same high-dose preparation with an appropriate placebo
7 Partly verified Full text not readStored summary read N07 · Evidence conditionHow are supplementation duration and colonoscopy visits distinguished?Required
12 months of supplementation and colonoscopy at 6 and 12 months are recorded. The exact analysis interval for later P values and follow-up after stopping remain unverified.
S1
Supplementation and visit information exists, but intervals and persistence for all results cannot be established.
12 months of supplementation, colonoscopy at 6/12 months, observation windows and follow-up after stopping
A study prespecifying follow-up times and persistence after stopping
8 Partly verified Full text not readStored summary read N08 · Evidence conditionHow were participants with new adenomas identified?Required
The endpoint is the proportion with at least one new adenoma over 0~12 months. Details of histological assessment, assessor blinding and lesion matching are absent.
S1
The endpoint name and participant unit are checked, but details of measurement reproducibility and new-lesion identification remain unverified.
Participants with at least one new adenoma over 0~12 months, colonoscopy/histological assessment, assessors and lesion matching
A comparison prespecifying identification of new lesions and central reading
9 Partly verified Full text not readStored summary read N09 · Evidence conditionHow were random allocation and concealment performed?Required
A randomized double-blind high-dose versus low-dose comparison is recorded. Details of allocation sequence, concealment and design unit are absent.
S1
The design is named, but material verifying the actual allocation process and concealment remains unverified.
High/low-dose allocation, random sequence, concealment, design unit and group baseline balance
A replicated comparison clearly reporting the allocation sequence, concealment and design unit
10 Partly verified Full text not readStored summary read N10 · Evidence conditionDid double blinding cover both participants and outcome readers?Required
The bibliographic/design description says double blind. Methods for colonoscopy readers and analysts are absent from the current summary.
S1
Blinding is named, but actual blinding of outcome reading and analysis remains unverified.
Blinding of participants, providers, colonoscopy readers and analysts, and how blinding was maintained
A study specifying assessor blinding and reading reproducibility
11 Unverified Full text not readStored summary read N11 · Evidence conditionWere prior adenomas and baseline lesions similar between groups?Required
Overall prior adenomas and 51 randomized participants are recorded, but a group baseline table is absent from the retained material.
S1
Balance or differences in baseline lesions and risk between groups could not be checked.
Group history, baseline adenoma count/size, age, concurrent exposures and baseline comparisons
A comparison prespecifying baseline-risk stratification and an adjustment plan
12 Partly verified Full text not readStored summary read N12 · Evidence conditionAre the 51 randomized and 37 efficacy-evaluable participants distinguished?Required
51 randomized and 37 efficacy-evaluable participants are recorded, with participants with new adenomas at 9/19 versus 12/18. Group randomized/completed denominators are absent.
S1
Event denominators for the efficacy-evaluable population exist, but correspondence with group randomized/completed/whole-analysis populations remains unverified.
Whole-trial and group randomized/analyzed/completed/event denominators and analysis populations
A comparison specifying all randomized participants and each analysis population
13 Unverified Full text not readStored summary read N13 · Evidence conditionDoes the efficacy-evaluable result estimate an ITT allocation effect?Required
The original material describes 37 efficacy-evaluable participants and unverified ITT. The representative result for all 51 participants and the effect definition were not acquired.
S1
The representative RR cannot be established as an ITT allocation effect.
ITT/PP, efficacy-evaluable inclusion criteria, effect of interest and adjusted/unadjusted analyses
A comparison prespecifying and separately reporting allocation and adherence effects
14 Partly verified Full text not readStored summary read N14 · Evidence conditionWho was excluded from the efficacy analysis and how was this handled?Required
The original text describes 27% efficacy-analysis exclusion. Group-specific reasons, handling and sensitivity results are absent from the current summary.
S1
The denominator difference and original exclusion statement are checked, but the structure and impact of missingness remain unverified.
Group attrition/exclusions, reasons, missing-data handling, sensitivity analyses and analysis timing
A comparison tracking all outcomes and prespecifying missing-data handling
15 Partly verified Full text not readStored summary read N15 · Evidence conditionWhich analysis and direction does RR0.71 represent?Required
9/19 versus 12/18 and RR0.71 are retained. Adjustment status, model and absolute difference are unverified in this summary.
S1
The reported RR and direction are available, but the full effect-estimate definition and absolute effect remain unverified.
High dose versus low dose, participant event proportions, reported RR, adjustment status and model
A comparison prospectively reporting relative and absolute effects with their analysis definitions
16 Unverified Full text not readStored summary read N16 · Evidence conditionCan the interval and importance of the representative RR be interpreted?Required
The original material explicitly states that the exact 95%CI and P value for the representative comparison are unverified. An importance criterion is also unverified.
S1
Without a reported interval, the relationship between the range of possible effects and importance cannot be assessed.
The selected comparison's 95%CI, denominators, P value and prespecified importance criterion
A comparison prospectively justifying importance and precision planning for the clinical question
17 Met Full text not readStored summary read N17 · Evidence conditionWere later P=.02/.04 values attached to the representative recurrence result?Required
P=.02 and .04 are retained as separate results for later adenoma decrease and total size. The exact later analysis interval remains unverified.
S1
Attribution of numbers and uncertainty boundaries is preserved; significance of the representative RR was not confirmed.
Endpoint/analysis-interval correspondence between later decrease, total size and the 0~12-month participant result
A report prespecifying analyses by endpoint/time and multiplicity
18 Unverified Full text not readStored summary read N18 · Evidence conditionWere the selected endpoint, analysis and timing prespecified?Required
The registration field is unverified, and the original material also describes unverified prospective registration. The original protocol and SAP were not read in this conversion.
S1
Agreement or differences between prior plans and actual reporting could not be compared.
Registration, protocol, SAP, primary/secondary endpoints, change history and actual reporting
A comparison preregistering the question, endpoints, analyses and timing and publishing all results
19 Unverified Full text not readStored summary read N19 · Evidence conditionHow were other preventive interventions and adherence handled between groups?Required
A high/low-dose comparison exists, but group-specific medicines, diet, additional intake and adherence data are absent from the current summary.
S1
The scope for checking concurrent interventions, actual exposure differences and handling is insufficient.
Concurrent medicines, diet, additional garlic, rescue treatment and group adherence/changes
A comparison prospectively tracking and analyzing concurrent exposures and adherence
20 Partly verified Full text not readStored summary read N20 · Evidence conditionAre a trial's summary and citation counted as separate replications?Required
The evidence and citation link Tanaka2004/PMID15726891. Korean/English/combined summaries are not counted as additional trials.
S1
Local report links exist, but the scope of all related reports and unique families/participants remains unverified.
Tanaka2004, PMID15726891, evidence/citation and related registration/report families
Independent replication matching product, population and endpoint; first organize existing related-report families
21 Unverified Full text not readStored summary read N21 · Evidence conditionCan differences in results across unique trials be compared?Conditional
The current retained record historically describes no independent confirmation and provides one report clue. A comparison across the full external literature was not performed in this conversion.
S1
The historical statement of no independent confirmation is not converted into absence of all current studies or confirmed consistency.
Family-specific results for the same endpoint, formulation/population/timing differences and null/unfavorable results
Replication of independent studies matching formulation, population and endpoint, with disclosure of the result distribution
22 Partly verified Full text not readStored summary read N22 · Evidence conditionWere product supply, funding and author interests distinguished?Required
The original text describes product supply as I1, while the evidence funding entry says details of AGE-related commercial involvement are unverified.
S1
A historical product-related clue exists, but funding, supply, author employment/patents and declaration details remain unverified.
AGE commercial involvement, product supply, funding, author employment/patents and declared COI
Independent replication and data disclosure specifying manufacturer roles and funding
23 Met Full text not readStored summary read N23 · Evidence conditionWas the material now read a summary or the original full paper?Required
The whole retained summary, evidence and citation were read. A PubMed link exists, but external abstracts, full text and registration were not read in this conversion.
S1
The honest distinction in current reading level is checked; original-paper content verification is not established.
Retained summary, citation, external abstract/full text, acquisition/reading and original location/identity
First obtain access records for existing originals; access alone does not establish a new effect
24 Partly verified Full text not readStored summary read N24 · Evidence conditionWhat review date and search scope does this record represent?Required
The original verdict-review date is 2026-09-08, and abstract comparison is a historical statement. Report-specific access date/level and search-cutoff fields are absent.
S1
A review date and historical statement exist, but the current full-literature search/retraction status and individual access history remain unverified.
Original verdict-review date, historical abstract-comparison statement, current local-review date and search/correction/retraction scope
If an update is requested, a literature update recording search scope/date and exclusion/selection reasons
25 Partly verified Full text not readStored summary read N25 · Evidence conditionDoes the 12-month adenoma result answer persistence after stopping or cancer prevention?Recommended
The selected result concerns participants with adenomas over 12 months; the original text says it cannot be extended to colorectal-cancer prevention or complete polyp prevention.
S1
The current endpoint boundary is checked, but direct evidence for persistence after stopping or cancer events remains unverified in this retained scope.
The selected 12-month result, persistence after stopping, clinical cancer events and direct estimates
Follow-up and direct clinical-endpoint research appropriate to long-term persistence/cancer-event questions
26 Unverified Full text not readStored summary read N26 · Evidence conditionWhat adverse events were collected and how?Required
A caution label, unverified long-term safety and concomitant-use cautions are stated. Actual event definitions, collection methods and outcome tables are absent.
S1
A safety label exists, but actual adverse-event collection and occurrence for the selected exposure could not be checked.
Event definitions, systematic/spontaneous collection, severity, incident/worsening events and stopping criteria
Safety follow-up prespecifying event definitions, systematic collection, severity and stopping
27 Unverified Full text not readStored summary read N27 · Evidence conditionAre the times of adverse-event onset, stopping and recovery known?Conditional
12 months of supplementation is checked, but event-onset, stopping, recovery and re-exposure timelines are absent from the retained material.
S1
Exposure duration cannot be converted into proof of the event's temporal relationship.
Exposure start/stop, event onset, recovery, re-exposure, latency and follow-up windows
Safety research prospectively tracking exposure and event timelines
28 Unverified Full text not readStored summary read N28 · Evidence conditionCan high-dose and low-dose risks be compared?Conditional
Efficacy concerns active high/low dose, but group harm events and comparative-risk estimates are absent from the current summary.
S1
The comparison design does not establish verified group safety.
Group events, comparator, analysis population and actual comparative-risk estimates
A prespecified safety comparison of the same high/low-dose product; a nonexposure question requires a separate comparison
29 Unverified Full text not readStored summary read N29 · Evidence conditionAre event and exposure denominators available for harm frequency?Required
Randomized/efficacy-evaluable denominators exist, but separate harm events, safety denominators and exposure time remain unverified in the summary.
S1
The event-denominator link needed to state harm frequency remains unverified.
Group exposed populations, affected people/event counts, exposure/follow-up time and collection scope
Follow-up publishing safety denominators, exposure time and all events together
30 Partly verified Full text not readStored summary read N30 · Evidence conditionWere antithrombotic or procedure-related details checked?Conditional
The original text calls for checking anticoagulants, antiplatelet medicines and peri-procedural use. Actual concomitant-use/event records for trial participants are absent.
S1
The concomitant-use context needing review is recorded, but actual interactions and alternative causes remain unverified.
Actual concomitant medicines, procedures, baseline conditions, alternative causes and group exposure/adjustment
Appropriate safety observation for clinically relevant concomitant-use/procedural settings
31 Unverified Full text not readStored summary read N31 · Evidence conditionWho was missing from safety follow-up?Conditional
Efficacy-analysis exclusion is described, but safety follow-up losses and reasons for noncollection are not separately verified.
S1
Efficacy missingness is not inherited as safety missingness, and bias magnitude is not established.
Safety collection/selection, follow-up losses, group noncollection and disclosure of all events
Observation disclosing safety follow-up for all exposed participants and reasons for noncollection
32 Unverified Full text not readStored summary read N32 · Evidence conditionAre harms of the same preparation recorded in other independent material?Conditional
The same caution is repeated across languages/summaries, but an independent harm-event list or family information is currently absent.
S1
Repeated wording is not summed as unique events, and the overall number of harm reports remains undetermined.
Unique event/study families, the same exposure/event, contrary records and distinctions from recitation/regulatory material
Independent safety observation in appropriate populations using the same preparation, with disclosure of contrary records
33 Partly verified Full text not readStored summary read N33 · Evidence conditionCan harms beyond the small 1-year dataset be described?Recommended
The original text says a small 1-year dataset cannot establish long-term safety of intake for cancer prevention.
S1
The current limitation is stated, but direct long-term, rare-event and vulnerable-group safety material remains unverified in this scope.
Long-term and rare harms, vulnerable populations, baseline risk, exposures/interactions and appropriate follow-up
Follow-up, registration and safety observation appropriate to long-term/special-population questions
34 Partly verified Full text not readStored summary read N34 · Evidence conditionIs the caution a signal, comparative risk or causal statement?Required
The current record contains caution, unverified long-term safety and a need to check concomitant use. Actual harm events, comparative risk and causal estimates remain unverified.
S1
The original caution's scope is preserved; safety outcomes or individual safety are not confirmed.
Actual harm events, design/comparison, denominators, timing, alternatives and currently supportable wording
Comparative safety research appropriate to the question; first check the basis of the original caution
35 Met Full text not readStored summary read N35 · Evidence conditionWere original grade, score and axes inherited as new condition states?Required
Original C46, Caution, all axes/booleans, Korean/English text, empty arrays, URLs and corrections are preserved as native values in the retained summary. No new clinical judgment is made.
S1
Preservation of the original verdict and separation from new condition states are checked; the original grade is not recertified.
Native values for original C46, Caution, all axes, empty subclaims, Korean/English text, original URLs and corrections
Traceability of original text, versions and change events rather than a new research requirement
36 Met Full text not readStored summary read N36 · Evidence conditionWere generic English wording and historical correction statements preserved?Required
The current English evidence/citation contains generic-principle wording, while corrections historically describe specific translation replacement. Both are preserved as original values.
S1
Original values and historical statements are preserved separately; specific English numerical verification or reconstruction of history is not established.
Current original English evidence/citation values, corrections dated 2026-09-14 and historical versus current access levels
Traceability of bilingual original values and change history rather than a new clinical research requirement
No items match your search or filter.

36 itemsWhat the statuses mean

Assessment scope

Stored-material review date
2026-10-06
Original evidence cut-off
2026-09-08
Scope actually checked
Retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records. Full papers, supplements, registrations, plans and original data were not read.
What the dates mean
The material check date is the original date retained in the summary and condition records. The original verdict-review date does not establish a search cut-off or historical access dates for individual materials; external access was not attempted in this conversion.
Population
51 adults with prior adenomas. Lesions larger than 5 mm were removed, and smaller lesions could remain. Group baseline characteristics and complete removal remain unverified.
Ingredient, formulation and route
Oral capsules equivalent to liquid AGE. Product, manufacturing and batch specifications, and SAC and dry-matter equivalents remain unverified.
Dose
Nominal high dose 2.4 mL/day versus low dose 0.16 mL/day. Frequency, actual intake, component content and adherence remain unverified.
Comparator
Active low-dose AGE 0.16 mL/day. The low dose is not treated as an inactive placebo or an unexposed control.
Measured outcome
Proportion with at least one new adenoma over 0~12 months. Among 37 efficacy-evaluable participants, high-dose 9/19 versus low-dose 12/18 and reported RR0.71 are retained; the exact CI, P value and ITT result for this comparison remain unverified.
Duration
12 months of supplementation and colonoscopy at 6 and 12 months. The exact analysis interval for later results and follow-up after stopping remain unverified.
Questions outside this scope
Results from a trial in which smaller lesions could remain are not extended to confirmed prevention of recurrence after complete removal or colorectal-cancer prevention.; P=.02 and .04 for later adenoma decrease and total size are not attached to the selected 0~12-month participant result. The exact later analysis interval remains unverified.; 51 randomized participants, 37 efficacy-evaluable participants and the original 27% efficacy-analysis exclusion are kept distinct. No new RR, CI, absolute difference or percentage is calculated.; Raw garlic, powder, garlic oil, stabilized allicin, black garlic, fermented garlic and isolated SAC are not treated as the same aged-garlic-extract formulation.; The original caution statement does not establish observed harm incidence or individual safety. Long-term, rare-event, vulnerable-group, concomitant-use and peri-procedural safety and a general optimal dose are separate questions.

Evidence and sources

The links below lead to the sources. A link alone does not mean the original source was read or its latest publication status verified.

S1 · Tanaka S et al. Hiroshima J Med Sci. 2004;53:39-45. PMID: 15726891.

PubMed

Material type
Retained record: a randomized double-blind comparison of high dose versus active low dose. Details of allocation, concealment, design unit and outcome reading remain unverified.
Materials actually read
The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.
Findings recorded in the stored summary
Among 37 efficacy-evaluable participants from 51 randomized, participants with new adenomas were high-dose 9/19 versus active low-dose 12/18, with reported RR0.71.
Record level
The selected result is the 0~12-month participant proportion. The exact 95%CI, P value and ITT result for the selected comparison remain unverified. P=.02 and .04 for later adenoma decrease and total size are separate results, with the exact analysis interval unverified.
Study overlap and independent replication
The retained evidence and citation link to Tanaka2004/PMID15726891. The same trial’s 51 randomized and 37 efficacy-evaluable participants, endpoints, time points and Korean/English summaries are not double-counted as independent trials or participants. Global unique-trial counts, participant totals and independent replication remain unverified.
Public availability, access and reading status by material
MaterialPublic availabilityAccess statusActually readNotes
Retained verdict summaryRetained verdict summary readRetained copy acquired; summary readStored existing review summary readRelevant content in the retained Korean/English summary, evidence and citation was read. This does not establish acquisition or reading of the original clinical paper. The 2004 report by Tanaka and colleagues is a citation linked in the retained summary. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans were not read in this conversion, and independent clinical validation was not performed. The material check date is the original date retained in the summary and condition records. The original verdict-review date does not establish a search cut-off or historical access dates for individual materials; external access was not attempted in this conversion.
PubMed bibliographic/abstract gatewayBibliographic link retained; external material unreadExternal access not attempted; not acquiredNot readThis is the PubMed link from the retained citation. The current response, bibliographic identity, abstract content and public access were not checked. The 2004 report by Tanaka and colleagues is a citation linked in the retained summary. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans were not read in this conversion, and independent clinical validation was not performed. The material check date is the original date retained in the summary and condition records. The original verdict-review date does not establish a search cut-off or historical access dates for individual materials; external access was not attempted in this conversion.
Original full text and supplements; location unverifiedFull-text and supplement location unverified; unreadExternal access not attempted; not acquiredNot readThe DOI, PMCID, and identity and location of the full text and supplements remain unverified. Access was not attempted; this does not establish absence of a publicly available full text. The 2004 report by Tanaka and colleagues is a citation linked in the retained summary. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans were not read in this conversion, and independent clinical validation was not performed. The material check date is the original date retained in the summary and condition records. The original verdict-review date does not establish a search cut-off or historical access dates for individual materials; external access was not attempted in this conversion.

Report counts versus independent study counts

The retained evidence and citation link to Tanaka2004/PMID15726891. The same trial’s 51 randomized and 37 efficacy-evaluable participants, endpoints, time points and Korean/English summaries are not double-counted as independent trials or participants. Global unique-trial counts, participant totals and independent replication remain unverified.

Review criteria

Version 1.0 · Criteria record date 2026-10-06. These are Chamgap's own application conditions, informed by the referenced methods. They do not constitute official assessment-tool certification or a new efficacy score.

N01 · Which adenoma outcome is compared with what?
Required materials and conditions
Prior adenomas, extent of lesion removal, high-dose/active low-dose AGE and the 0~12-month participant endpoint
Conditions for verification
Preserve the original claim and limit the selected question to the proportion with a new adenoma over 0~12 months versus active low dose.
Requirement and applicability
Required
Application exceptions
Adenoma count, size and colorectal cancer are separate endpoints and are not combined as required confirmation in this table.
Why this condition is needed
Needed to avoid replacing the observed trial result with prevention after complete removal or cancer prevention
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
N02 · Which adults with prior adenomas were included?
Required materials and conditions
Diagnosis, age, baseline risk, eligibility/exclusions, care setting and group characteristics
Conditions for verification
Link the record of adults with prior adenomas to the scope of verified eligibility and baseline characteristics, including matches or differences from the question's population.
Requirement and applicability
Required
Application exceptions
The whole-trial size of 51 randomized participants is not used as group baseline characteristics or representativeness.
Why this condition is needed
The prior-adenoma population must be distinguished from the general population and groups with complete removal
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
N03 · Could smaller lesions have remained?
Required materials and conditions
Initial removal size threshold, baseline lesion list, completeness of removal and identification of new lesions
Conditions for verification
State removal of lesions larger than 5 mm and the possibility of smaller residual lesions, retaining uncertainty about identification of new lesions and complete removal.
Requirement and applicability
Required
Application exceptions
Removal of lesions larger than 5 mm is not converted into removal of all lesions.
Why this condition is needed
Residual lesions and new recurrence after complete removal are different conditions
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
N04 · What were the specifications of the AGE capsules actually administered?
Required materials and conditions
Aged extract, liquid-equivalent capsules, manufacture/batch, SAC and dry-matter equivalents, and route
Conditions for verification
Distinguish the name of the oral liquid-equivalent AGE capsules from verified or unverified actual specifications, component quantities and product matching.
Requirement and applicability
Required
Application exceptions
Raw garlic, powder, oil, black garlic and isolated SAC are not substituted as the same preparation.
Why this condition is needed
Liquid-equivalent quantity cannot be arbitrarily converted into SAC or dry-matter mass
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
N05 · Were actual intakes of 2.4 mL and 0.16 mL checked?
Required materials and conditions
Group nominal liquid-equivalent quantities, frequency, adherence, actual intake and product content
Conditions for verification
Distinguish nominal high-dose 2.4 mL/day versus low-dose 0.16 mL/day from unverified actual exposure and adherence.
Requirement and applicability
Required
Application exceptions
Liquid-equivalent quantities are not converted to dry-matter mg or actual component quantities.
Why this condition is needed
Nominal high/low-dose comparisons must be separated from differences in actual exposure
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
N06 · Was the comparator placebo or active low-dose AGE?
Required materials and conditions
Comparator preparation, components, dose, placebo/no-treatment status and comparison direction
Conditions for verification
State the actual comparison of high dose versus active low-dose 0.16 mL/day and separately retain effects versus placebo as unverified.
Requirement and applicability
Required
Application exceptions
The low dose is not assumed to be biologically inactive or placebo.
Why this condition is needed
Needed to avoid converting a result versus active low dose into an effect versus placebo
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
N07 · How are supplementation duration and colonoscopy visits distinguished?
Required materials and conditions
12 months of supplementation, colonoscopy at 6/12 months, observation windows and follow-up after stopping
Conditions for verification
Cite the record of 12 months of supplementation and colonoscopy at 6/12 months, distinguishing unverified analysis windows, visit allowances and follow-up after stopping.
Requirement and applicability
Required
Application exceptions
Recorded visits at 6 and 12 months do not establish the exact analysis interval for later P values.
Why this condition is needed
Visit times must not be treated as the exact interval for each analysis
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
N08 · How were participants with new adenomas identified?
Required materials and conditions
Participants with at least one new adenoma over 0~12 months, colonoscopy/histological assessment, assessors and lesion matching
Conditions for verification
Link the participant-level endpoint definition to the scope of verified assessment methods, assessor blinding and measurement limitations.
Requirement and applicability
Required
Application exceptions
Adenoma is not a directly measured colorectal-cancer event.
Why this condition is needed
Participant proportions, adenoma counts and sizes are different endpoints
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
N09 · How were random allocation and concealment performed?
Required materials and conditions
High/low-dose allocation, random sequence, concealment, design unit and group baseline balance
Conditions for verification
Distinguish the record of a randomized double-blind high/low-dose comparison from unverified sequence, concealment and design unit.
Requirement and applicability
Required
Application exceptions
Unverified design details do not automatically establish nonapplication of crossover/cluster handling.
Why this condition is needed
The summary label of randomization cannot establish adequacy of allocation methods
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
N10 · Did double blinding cover both participants and outcome readers?
Required materials and conditions
Blinding of participants, providers, colonoscopy readers and analysts, and how blinding was maintained
Conditions for verification
Separately describe the recorded targets and methods of double blinding and uncertainties relevant to colonoscopy outcome measurement.
Requirement and applicability
Required
Application exceptions
The double-blind label is not used as confirmation that all assessors were blinded.
Why this condition is needed
Supplementation blinding and outcome-reader blinding must be distinguished
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
N11 · Were prior adenomas and baseline lesions similar between groups?
Required materials and conditions
Group history, baseline adenoma count/size, age, concurrent exposures and baseline comparisons
Conditions for verification
State the scope of baseline group comparisons and identify unavailable items.
Requirement and applicability
Required
Application exceptions
A randomization label does not automatically guarantee baseline balance.
Why this condition is needed
Baseline lesion differences in a small trial are relevant to interpretation
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
N12 · Are the 51 randomized and 37 efficacy-evaluable participants distinguished?
Required materials and conditions
Whole-trial and group randomized/analyzed/completed/event denominators and analysis populations
Conditions for verification
Link 51 randomized, 37 efficacy-evaluable and 9/19 versus 12/18 to their analysis, retaining unverified group randomized/completed denominators.
Requirement and applicability
Required
Application exceptions
The 37 participants are not treated as ITT for all randomized participants or as the original recruitment denominator.
Why this condition is needed
Event denominators in the efficacy-evaluable population must not be converted to randomized-group denominators
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
N13 · Does the efficacy-evaluable result estimate an ITT allocation effect?
Required materials and conditions
ITT/PP, efficacy-evaluable inclusion criteria, effect of interest and adjusted/unadjusted analyses
Conditions for verification
Preserve the recorded efficacy-evaluable population and explain definitions and uncertainties for allocation effects, adherence effects and adjustment.
Requirement and applicability
Required
Application exceptions
Unverified ITT and absence of an ITT result are described only within the retained scope.
Why this condition is needed
The result for 37 efficacy-evaluable participants cannot be inherited as an allocation effect for 51 randomized participants
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
N14 · Who was excluded from the efficacy analysis and how was this handled?
Required materials and conditions
Group attrition/exclusions, reasons, missing-data handling, sensitivity analyses and analysis timing
Conditions for verification
Preserve the original randomized/evaluable distinction and historical 27% statement, leaving group reasons, handling and bias magnitude unverified.
Requirement and applicability
Required
Application exceptions
Retain the original 27% efficacy-analysis exclusion without calculating a new excluded count or percentage.
Why this condition is needed
The limitations of efficacy-analysis selection and missingness must be explained
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
N15 · Which analysis and direction does RR0.71 represent?
Required materials and conditions
High dose versus low dose, participant event proportions, reported RR, adjustment status and model
Conditions for verification
Link reported RR0.71 only to participants with a new adenoma over 0~12 months, marking adjustment, model and absolute-effect uncertainties.
Requirement and applicability
Required
Application exceptions
Do not recalculate a new RR, absolute difference or percentage from 9/19 versus 12/18.
Why this condition is needed
RR, absolute difference, within-group change and adenoma-count decrease are different measures
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
N16 · Can the interval and importance of the representative RR be interpreted?
Required materials and conditions
The selected comparison's 95%CI, denominators, P value and prespecified importance criterion
Conditions for verification
Record the originally reported interval and importance criterion for the selected RR, or why these were not checked, without creating a new grade.
Requirement and applicability
Required
Application exceptions
Do not invent a common minimum sample size, CI or importance threshold.
Why this condition is needed
A point estimate alone cannot establish an effect range or importance
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
N17 · Were later P=.02/.04 values attached to the representative recurrence result?
Required materials and conditions
Endpoint/analysis-interval correspondence between later decrease, total size and the 0~12-month participant result
Conditions for verification
Separate later-decrease/total-size P values from the selected participant result and retain the exact analysis interval as unverified.
Requirement and applicability
Required
Application exceptions
Colonoscopy visits at 6/12 months do not establish the later analysis interval as 6~12 months.
Why this condition is needed
P values from other endpoints must not be converted into significance for the representative RR
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
N18 · Were the selected endpoint, analysis and timing prespecified?
Required materials and conditions
Registration, protocol, SAP, primary/secondary endpoints, change history and actual reporting
Conditions for verification
Distinguish acquisition/reading of registration/plans, the scope of comparisons with the selected endpoint/analysis/timing and items not compared.
Requirement and applicability
Required
Application exceptions
Unverified registration is not converted into confirmed nonregistration or selective reporting.
Why this condition is needed
The actual level of comparison between prior planning and selective reporting must be stated
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
N19 · How were other preventive interventions and adherence handled between groups?
Required materials and conditions
Concurrent medicines, diet, additional garlic, rescue treatment and group adherence/changes
Conditions for verification
Explain verified and unverified group concomitant use, adherence and changes in relation to the effect of interest.
Requirement and applicability
Required
Application exceptions
Do not require all changes to be identical between groups or treat missing records as equality.
Why this condition is needed
Differences other than high/low dose must be distinguished from the outcome
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
N20 · Are a trial's summary and citation counted as separate replications?
Required materials and conditions
Tanaka2004, PMID15726891, evidence/citation and related registration/report families
Conditions for verification
Link the current 1 evidence summary/1 citation and bilingual restatements as the same report clue, leaving global unique-trial/participant counts undetermined.
Requirement and applicability
Required
Application exceptions
A single current report clue does not establish a count of 1 unique trial across the entire literature.
Why this condition is needed
Repeated citation of one report must not be counted as independent confirmation
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
N21 · Can differences in results across unique trials be compared?
Required materials and conditions
Family-specific results for the same endpoint, formulation/population/timing differences and null/unfavorable results
Conditions for verification
Distinguish endpoint differences within the retained report clue from unverified comparisons across unique studies.
Requirement and applicability
Conditional
Application exceptions
Do not label later-endpoint differences as inter-study conflict or external non-search as absence of contrary results.
Why this condition is needed
Inter-study consistency requires identifying unique families first
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
N22 · Were product supply, funding and author interests distinguished?
Required materials and conditions
AGE commercial involvement, product supply, funding, author employment/patents and declared COI
Conditions for verification
Link the original product-supply statement to unverified commercial details and distinguish the actual level of verification for funding and author relationships.
Requirement and applicability
Required
Application exceptions
Do not automatically exclude commercial involvement or treat unverified details as independent research.
Why this condition is needed
The original I1 axis or product-supply statement does not establish all funding information
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
N23 · Was the material now read a summary or the original full paper?
Required materials and conditions
Retained summary, citation, external abstract/full text, acquisition/reading and original location/identity
Conditions for verification
Record actual reading of the retained summary separately from unread external material and link reading to exact locations, values and identity.
Requirement and applicability
Required
Application exceptions
External access not attempted does not mean failed access or absence of a publicly available full text.
Why this condition is needed
Needed to avoid presenting summary reading as full-text reading
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
N24 · What review date and search scope does this record represent?
Required materials and conditions
Original verdict-review date, historical abstract-comparison statement, current local-review date and search/correction/retraction scope
Conditions for verification
Separate the original review date 2026-09-08 from the local-conversion date and mark unverified historical access dates/levels and search cutoff.
Requirement and applicability
Required
Application exceptions
A new search not performed is not described as 0 current studies or no retractions.
Why this condition is needed
The original review date must not be used as a current external-access date or search cutoff
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
N25 · Does the 12-month adenoma result answer persistence after stopping or cancer prevention?
Required materials and conditions
The selected 12-month result, persistence after stopping, clinical cancer events and direct estimates
Conditions for verification
Separate the 12-month participant endpoint from unverified extensions concerning persistence after stopping and colorectal-cancer prevention.
Requirement and applicability
Recommended
Application exceptions
Cancer-event studies are not imposed as mandatory fulfillment conditions for the current adenoma-endpoint record.
Why this condition is needed
Needed to distinguish the original narrow participant endpoint from separate long-term/cancer-prevention questions
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
N26 · What adverse events were collected and how?
Required materials and conditions
Event definitions, systematic/spontaneous collection, severity, incident/worsening events and stopping criteria
Conditions for verification
Link actual events, collection level and uncertainties for the same population/exposure, keeping efficacy and harm states separate.
Requirement and applicability
Required
Application exceptions
Unreported harms do not justify deleting efficacy material or declaring absence of harm.
Why this condition is needed
A caution label cannot substitute for actual adverse-event collection results
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
N27 · Are the times of adverse-event onset, stopping and recovery known?
Required materials and conditions
Exposure start/stop, event onset, recovery, re-exposure, latency and follow-up windows
Conditions for verification
Distinguish the 12-month supplementation record from verified/unverified event timelines without inferring recovery or re-exposure.
Requirement and applicability
Conditional
Application exceptions
12 months of supplementation is not used as latency or complete follow-up for all harms.
Why this condition is needed
Temporal relationships and long-term windows require review when actual events are reported
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
N28 · Can high-dose and low-dose risks be compared?
Required materials and conditions
Group events, comparator, analysis population and actual comparative-risk estimates
Conditions for verification
Distinguish the active high/low-dose design from whether actual group harm comparisons are provided, retaining missing comparative estimates as unverified.
Requirement and applicability
Conditional
Application exceptions
The low-dose control is not substituted for nonexposure or background incidence.
Why this condition is needed
An efficacy comparator does not guarantee the existence of harm-comparison data
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
N29 · Are event and exposure denominators available for harm frequency?
Required materials and conditions
Group exposed populations, affected people/event counts, exposure/follow-up time and collection scope
Conditions for verification
Present frequencies only from reported values linking harm events to their exposure/follow-up denominators, retaining unverified denominators.
Requirement and applicability
Required
Application exceptions
Do not use efficacy events 9/19 versus 12/18 as adverse-event counts or calculate new incidence.
Why this condition is needed
The efficacy denominators of 51/37 participants must not substitute for safety-analysis denominators
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
N30 · Were antithrombotic or procedure-related details checked?
Required materials and conditions
Actual concomitant medicines, procedures, baseline conditions, alternative causes and group exposure/adjustment
Conditions for verification
Distinguish the original concomitant-use/procedural caution from unverified actual co-exposures and alternative explanations.
Requirement and applicability
Conditional
Application exceptions
The caution is not treated as a finding that an interaction was observed in this trial.
Why this condition is needed
Original cautions and actual participant concomitant-use records are different information
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
N31 · Who was missing from safety follow-up?
Required materials and conditions
Safety collection/selection, follow-up losses, group noncollection and disclosure of all events
Conditions for verification
Separate efficacy-population exclusions from safety follow-up losses and retain unverified collection/selection/missingness.
Requirement and applicability
Conditional
Application exceptions
The original 27% efficacy-analysis exclusion is not converted into a safety dropout rate.
Why this condition is needed
Efficacy-analysis exclusion and safety noncollection may differ
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
N32 · Are harms of the same preparation recorded in other independent material?
Required materials and conditions
Unique event/study families, the same exposure/event, contrary records and distinctions from recitation/regulatory material
Conditions for verification
Distinguish sources of current harm statements, recitation and unverified relationships between unique events.
Requirement and applicability
Conditional
Application exceptions
Korean/English/combined restatements or signals from other garlic formulations are not counted as independent events.
Why this condition is needed
Repetition of the same caution is not an independent harm event
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
N33 · Can harms beyond the small 1-year dataset be described?
Required materials and conditions
Long-term and rare harms, vulnerable populations, baseline risk, exposures/interactions and appropriate follow-up
Conditions for verification
Distinguish the current supplementation/population scope from direct or unverified evidence on long-term, rare-event and vulnerable-group harms.
Requirement and applicability
Recommended
Application exceptions
All rare-event/vulnerable-group studies are not imposed as mandatory conditions for the narrow 12-month efficacy result.
Why this condition is needed
Long-term safety of intake for cancer prevention cannot be established from short, small datasets
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
N34 · Is the caution a signal, comparative risk or causal statement?
Required materials and conditions
Actual harm events, design/comparison, denominators, timing, alternatives and currently supportable wording
Conditions for verification
Separate the original safety caution from the level of verification for actual events/risks/causal material, retaining the limits of supportable wording.
Requirement and applicability
Required
Application exceptions
Do not use the efficacy RR as a causal harm estimate or create personal dosing instructions.
Why this condition is needed
General caution or insufficient material must not be converted into individual safety or causal results
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
N35 · Were original grade, score and axes inherited as new condition states?
Required materials and conditions
Native values for original C46, Caution, all axes, empty subclaims, Korean/English text, original URLs and corrections
Conditions for verification
Preserve all original bytes and source locations without creating new scores/grades, axis-derived fulfillment or independent clinical certification.
Requirement and applicability
Required
Application exceptions
The original Codex independent-cross-check label is not promoted into current independent clinical certification.
Why this condition is needed
Original history and current item-specific condition states must remain separate
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
N36 · Were generic English wording and historical correction statements preserved?
Required materials and conditions
Current original English evidence/citation values, corrections dated 2026-09-14 and historical versus current access levels
Conditions for verification
Preserve current English wording and corrections as original values without presenting general-principle sentences as verification of specific denominators, results or funding.
Requirement and applicability
Required
Application exceptions
Do not replace current original English values with new specific translations or reconstruct/judge the historical correction itself.
Why this condition is needed
A historical statement of specific translation replacement cannot establish numerical verification of current generic wording
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
Referenced methods and the sections actually reviewed

M03 · Cochrane Handbook 6.5 (2024), chapter updated 2023-08

Official methodology · §3.1, §3.2.1–3.2.3, MECIR C5/C7/C13

Referenced principle
Clearly record the question, eligibility conditions and reasons for changes, and distinguish variations in interventions.
Extent of review
Retained method-application records were reused. External originals were not reread and method content was not reassessed.

M04 · Cochrane Handbook 6.5.1 (2025), chapter updated 2025-03

Official methodology · §4.5, §4.6.1–4.6.3, MECIR C42

Referenced principle
Distinguish studies from reports and link them; do not omit a study solely because results are unreported.
Extent of review
Retained method-application records were reused. External originals were not reread and method content was not reassessed.

M08 · Cochrane Handbook 6.5 (2024), chapter updated 2019-10

Official methodology · §8.1–8.2.3, Table 8.2.a

Referenced principle
Define the outcome and effect of interest, then examine randomization, deviations, missing data, measurement and selective reporting.
Extent of review
Retained method-application records were reused. External originals were not reread and method content was not reassessed.

M15 · Cochrane Handbook 6.5 (2024), chapter updated 2023-08

Official methodology · §15.2.4, §15.3.1–15.3.3

Referenced principle
Distinguish effect estimates, intervals, importance and applicability. Sample size alone does not determine precision.
Extent of review
Retained method-application records were reused. External originals were not reread and method content was not reassessed.

M19 · Cochrane Handbook 6.5 (2024), chapter updated 2019-10

Official methodology · §19.1.2, §19.2.1–19.2.4

Referenced principle
Harm questions may require different designs, populations and follow-up from efficacy questions. Case reports do not establish incidence rates.
Extent of review
Retained method-application records were reused. External originals were not reread and method content was not reassessed.
What the statuses mean
Partly verified
Some required facts are known, but the stated conditions involving analyses, populations, formulation or denominators remain unverified.
Unverified
Direct information is unverified in the retained record. This does not establish an effect of 0, no studies or absence of harm.
Review incomplete
Reading of the material or review of a condition is incomplete. This does not establish absence of studies or efficacy.
Not reported
The needed information was not found in material actually read. This is distinguished from unread material.
Inaccessible
Access was actually attempted but the material was not acquired. This is distinguished from access not attempted.
Insufficient evidence matching the conditions
Evidence directly matching the defined question and conditions is insufficient. This does not establish absence of all research.
Not applicable
A specific condition does not apply to the question. This does not substitute for unread or unverified material.
Conflicting data
This covers discrepancies in material about the same question, denominator and timing. Differences between separate questions are not automatically treated as conflicts.
Met
The retained identity, observation or scope required by this item was checked within stated limits. This does not establish preventive efficacy or full-text certification.

Change history

2026-10-26 · Public page/material version 1.0

The public view and materials were prepared from the existing 36 items. No new clinical search, verification-state change or scoring was performed.

The stored-material review date (2026-10-06) and original evidence cut-off (2026-09-08) were retained unchanged.

Researcher downloads

These materials provide the same evidence, scope and verification status as this page.

View all item details

N01 · Which adenoma outcome is compared with what?

Current findings
The original claim is prevention of colorectal-adenoma recurrence, but the retained material concerns only participants with new adenomas in a trial in which smaller lesions could remain.
Verification status
Met
Materials actually read
The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.
Why unverified
The retained question and excluded extensions were checked; recurrence or cancer-prevention efficacy was not confirmed.
Reason for missing information
The retained question and excluded extensions were checked; recurrence or cancer-prevention efficacy was not confirmed.
Required materials and conditions
Prior adenomas, extent of lesion removal, high-dose/active low-dose AGE and the 0~12-month participant endpoint
Materials to obtain first
The trial's eligibility criteria, baseline lesion map and endpoint definition
Further research
A separate study directly measuring the relevant population and endpoint for recurrence after complete removal or colorectal cancer
Remaining uncertainty
The retained question and excluded extensions were checked; recurrence or cancer-prevention efficacy was not confirmed.
Conditions for verification
Preserve the original claim and limit the selected question to the proportion with a new adenoma over 0~12 months versus active low dose.
Why this condition is needed
Needed to avoid replacing the observed trial result with prevention after complete removal or cancer prevention
Application exceptions
Adenoma count, size and colorectal cancer are separate endpoints and are not combined as required confirmation in this table.
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S1

N02 · Which adults with prior adenomas were included?

Current findings
A record of 51 adults with prior adenomas exists. Age, baseline risk, setting and group-specific selection characteristics are not established in the current summary.
Verification status
Partly verified
Materials actually read
The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.
Why unverified
The population label is checked, but detailed eligibility, representativeness and group characteristics remain unverified.
Reason for missing information
The population label is checked, but detailed eligibility, representativeness and group characteristics remain unverified.
Required materials and conditions
Diagnosis, age, baseline risk, eligibility/exclusions, care setting and group characteristics
Materials to obtain first
The trial's eligibility criteria and group baseline table
Further research
A prespecified comparison stratified by baseline lesions and risk; first check the existing selection table
Remaining uncertainty
The population label is checked, but detailed eligibility, representativeness and group characteristics remain unverified.
Conditions for verification
Link the record of adults with prior adenomas to the scope of verified eligibility and baseline characteristics, including matches or differences from the question's population.
Why this condition is needed
The prior-adenoma population must be distinguished from the general population and groups with complete removal
Application exceptions
The whole-trial size of 51 randomized participants is not used as group baseline characteristics or representativeness.
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S1

N03 · Could smaller lesions have remained?

Current findings
The record states that only lesions larger than 5 mm were removed and smaller lesions could remain. A matching table of baseline and follow-up lesions is absent.
Verification status
Partly verified
Materials actually read
The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.
Why unverified
The limitation in removal extent is checked, but new-versus-residual identification for individual lesions and complete removal remain unverified.
Reason for missing information
The limitation in removal extent is checked, but new-versus-residual identification for individual lesions and complete removal remain unverified.
Required materials and conditions
Initial removal size threshold, baseline lesion list, completeness of removal and identification of new lesions
Materials to obtain first
Baseline/follow-up colonoscopy lesion maps, size thresholds and removal/new-lesion assessment records
Further research
A recurrence study prespecifying confirmation of complete removal and lesion matching
Remaining uncertainty
The limitation in removal extent is checked, but new-versus-residual identification for individual lesions and complete removal remain unverified.
Conditions for verification
State removal of lesions larger than 5 mm and the possibility of smaller residual lesions, retaining uncertainty about identification of new lesions and complete removal.
Why this condition is needed
Residual lesions and new recurrence after complete removal are different conditions
Application exceptions
Removal of lesions larger than 5 mm is not converted into removal of all lesions.
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S1

N04 · What were the specifications of the AGE capsules actually administered?

Current findings
Liquid-equivalent AGE capsules and oral administration are stated. SAC and dry-matter equivalents are unverified in the original material.
Verification status
Partly verified
Materials actually read
The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.
Why unverified
The formulation and route are named, but actual product specifications and component quantities remain unverified.
Reason for missing information
The formulation and route are named, but actual product specifications and component quantities remain unverified.
Required materials and conditions
Aged extract, liquid-equivalent capsules, manufacture/batch, SAC and dry-matter equivalents, and route
Materials to obtain first
Trial-product specifications, content/batch analyses and the basis for liquid-to-capsule equivalence
Further research
A replication using a specification-verified preparation; first obtain the existing product specifications
Remaining uncertainty
The formulation and route are named, but actual product specifications and component quantities remain unverified.
Conditions for verification
Distinguish the name of the oral liquid-equivalent AGE capsules from verified or unverified actual specifications, component quantities and product matching.
Why this condition is needed
Liquid-equivalent quantity cannot be arbitrarily converted into SAC or dry-matter mass
Application exceptions
Raw garlic, powder, oil, black garlic and isolated SAC are not substituted as the same preparation.
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S1

N05 · Were actual intakes of 2.4 mL and 0.16 mL checked?

Current findings
High-dose 2.4 mL/day versus low-dose 0.16 mL/day is recorded. Frequency, actual intake and component quantities are unverified.
Verification status
Partly verified
Materials actually read
The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.
Why unverified
A nominal dose comparison exists, but actual exposure and a general optimal dose remain unverified.
Reason for missing information
A nominal dose comparison exists, but actual exposure and a general optimal dose remain unverified.
Required materials and conditions
Group nominal liquid-equivalent quantities, frequency, adherence, actual intake and product content
Materials to obtain first
Administration schedules, pill-return/intake records, adherence and component-content material
Further research
A dose comparison prospectively tracking component quantities and adherence
Remaining uncertainty
A nominal dose comparison exists, but actual exposure and a general optimal dose remain unverified.
Conditions for verification
Distinguish nominal high-dose 2.4 mL/day versus low-dose 0.16 mL/day from unverified actual exposure and adherence.
Why this condition is needed
Nominal high/low-dose comparisons must be separated from differences in actual exposure
Application exceptions
Liquid-equivalent quantities are not converted to dry-matter mg or actual component quantities.
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S1

N06 · Was the comparator placebo or active low-dose AGE?

Current findings
The comparator was low-dose AGE 0.16 mL/day. The original text describes it as an active low-dose control.
Verification status
Met
Materials actually read
The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.
Why unverified
The actual comparison structure is preserved; this does not establish an effect versus placebo or inactivity of the low dose.
Reason for missing information
The actual comparison structure is preserved; this does not establish an effect versus placebo or inactivity of the low dose.
Required materials and conditions
Comparator preparation, components, dose, placebo/no-treatment status and comparison direction
Materials to obtain first
Component, appearance, content and exposure specifications for the comparator capsules
Further research
For a placebo question, a direct comparison of the same high-dose preparation with an appropriate placebo
Remaining uncertainty
The actual comparison structure is preserved; this does not establish an effect versus placebo or inactivity of the low dose.
Conditions for verification
State the actual comparison of high dose versus active low-dose 0.16 mL/day and separately retain effects versus placebo as unverified.
Why this condition is needed
Needed to avoid converting a result versus active low dose into an effect versus placebo
Application exceptions
The low dose is not assumed to be biologically inactive or placebo.
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S1

N07 · How are supplementation duration and colonoscopy visits distinguished?

Current findings
12 months of supplementation and colonoscopy at 6 and 12 months are recorded. The exact analysis interval for later P values and follow-up after stopping remain unverified.
Verification status
Partly verified
Materials actually read
The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.
Why unverified
Supplementation and visit information exists, but intervals and persistence for all results cannot be established.
Reason for missing information
Supplementation and visit information exists, but intervals and persistence for all results cannot be established.
Required materials and conditions
12 months of supplementation, colonoscopy at 6/12 months, observation windows and follow-up after stopping
Materials to obtain first
Visit schedules, actual colonoscopy times and analysis-interval definitions
Further research
A study prespecifying follow-up times and persistence after stopping
Remaining uncertainty
Supplementation and visit information exists, but intervals and persistence for all results cannot be established.
Conditions for verification
Cite the record of 12 months of supplementation and colonoscopy at 6/12 months, distinguishing unverified analysis windows, visit allowances and follow-up after stopping.
Why this condition is needed
Visit times must not be treated as the exact interval for each analysis
Application exceptions
Recorded visits at 6 and 12 months do not establish the exact analysis interval for later P values.
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S1

N08 · How were participants with new adenomas identified?

Current findings
The endpoint is the proportion with at least one new adenoma over 0~12 months. Details of histological assessment, assessor blinding and lesion matching are absent.
Verification status
Partly verified
Materials actually read
The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.
Why unverified
The endpoint name and participant unit are checked, but details of measurement reproducibility and new-lesion identification remain unverified.
Reason for missing information
The endpoint name and participant unit are checked, but details of measurement reproducibility and new-lesion identification remain unverified.
Required materials and conditions
Participants with at least one new adenoma over 0~12 months, colonoscopy/histological assessment, assessors and lesion matching
Materials to obtain first
The trial's endpoint definition, colonoscopy/histological assessment guidance and assessor-blinding material
Further research
A comparison prespecifying identification of new lesions and central reading
Remaining uncertainty
The endpoint name and participant unit are checked, but details of measurement reproducibility and new-lesion identification remain unverified.
Conditions for verification
Link the participant-level endpoint definition to the scope of verified assessment methods, assessor blinding and measurement limitations.
Why this condition is needed
Participant proportions, adenoma counts and sizes are different endpoints
Application exceptions
Adenoma is not a directly measured colorectal-cancer event.
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S1

N09 · How were random allocation and concealment performed?

Current findings
A randomized double-blind high-dose versus low-dose comparison is recorded. Details of allocation sequence, concealment and design unit are absent.
Verification status
Partly verified
Materials actually read
The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.
Why unverified
The design is named, but material verifying the actual allocation process and concealment remains unverified.
Reason for missing information
The design is named, but material verifying the actual allocation process and concealment remains unverified.
Required materials and conditions
High/low-dose allocation, random sequence, concealment, design unit and group baseline balance
Materials to obtain first
Allocation methods, concealment procedures, original protocol and group baseline table
Further research
A replicated comparison clearly reporting the allocation sequence, concealment and design unit
Remaining uncertainty
The design is named, but material verifying the actual allocation process and concealment remains unverified.
Conditions for verification
Distinguish the record of a randomized double-blind high/low-dose comparison from unverified sequence, concealment and design unit.
Why this condition is needed
The summary label of randomization cannot establish adequacy of allocation methods
Application exceptions
Unverified design details do not automatically establish nonapplication of crossover/cluster handling.
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S1

N10 · Did double blinding cover both participants and outcome readers?

Current findings
The bibliographic/design description says double blind. Methods for colonoscopy readers and analysts are absent from the current summary.
Verification status
Partly verified
Materials actually read
The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.
Why unverified
Blinding is named, but actual blinding of outcome reading and analysis remains unverified.
Reason for missing information
Blinding is named, but actual blinding of outcome reading and analysis remains unverified.
Required materials and conditions
Blinding of participants, providers, colonoscopy readers and analysts, and how blinding was maintained
Materials to obtain first
Blinding targets/maintenance procedures, reading guidance and unblinding records
Further research
A study specifying assessor blinding and reading reproducibility
Remaining uncertainty
Blinding is named, but actual blinding of outcome reading and analysis remains unverified.
Conditions for verification
Separately describe the recorded targets and methods of double blinding and uncertainties relevant to colonoscopy outcome measurement.
Why this condition is needed
Supplementation blinding and outcome-reader blinding must be distinguished
Application exceptions
The double-blind label is not used as confirmation that all assessors were blinded.
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S1

N11 · Were prior adenomas and baseline lesions similar between groups?

Current findings
Overall prior adenomas and 51 randomized participants are recorded, but a group baseline table is absent from the retained material.
Verification status
Unverified
Materials actually read
The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.
Why unverified
Balance or differences in baseline lesions and risk between groups could not be checked.
Reason for missing information
Balance or differences in baseline lesions and risk between groups could not be checked.
Required materials and conditions
Group history, baseline adenoma count/size, age, concurrent exposures and baseline comparisons
Materials to obtain first
Group baseline characteristics and baseline colonoscopy lesion tables
Further research
A comparison prespecifying baseline-risk stratification and an adjustment plan
Remaining uncertainty
Balance or differences in baseline lesions and risk between groups could not be checked.
Conditions for verification
State the scope of baseline group comparisons and identify unavailable items.
Why this condition is needed
Baseline lesion differences in a small trial are relevant to interpretation
Application exceptions
A randomization label does not automatically guarantee baseline balance.
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S1

N12 · Are the 51 randomized and 37 efficacy-evaluable participants distinguished?

Current findings
51 randomized and 37 efficacy-evaluable participants are recorded, with participants with new adenomas at 9/19 versus 12/18. Group randomized/completed denominators are absent.
Verification status
Partly verified
Materials actually read
The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.
Why unverified
Event denominators for the efficacy-evaluable population exist, but correspondence with group randomized/completed/whole-analysis populations remains unverified.
Reason for missing information
Event denominators for the efficacy-evaluable population exist, but correspondence with group randomized/completed/whole-analysis populations remains unverified.
Required materials and conditions
Whole-trial and group randomized/analyzed/completed/event denominators and analysis populations
Materials to obtain first
Participant flow and group randomized/completed/analyzed/event tables
Further research
A comparison specifying all randomized participants and each analysis population
Remaining uncertainty
Event denominators for the efficacy-evaluable population exist, but correspondence with group randomized/completed/whole-analysis populations remains unverified.
Conditions for verification
Link 51 randomized, 37 efficacy-evaluable and 9/19 versus 12/18 to their analysis, retaining unverified group randomized/completed denominators.
Why this condition is needed
Event denominators in the efficacy-evaluable population must not be converted to randomized-group denominators
Application exceptions
The 37 participants are not treated as ITT for all randomized participants or as the original recruitment denominator.
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S1

N13 · Does the efficacy-evaluable result estimate an ITT allocation effect?

Current findings
The original material describes 37 efficacy-evaluable participants and unverified ITT. The representative result for all 51 participants and the effect definition were not acquired.
Verification status
Unverified
Materials actually read
The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.
Why unverified
The representative RR cannot be established as an ITT allocation effect.
Reason for missing information
The representative RR cannot be established as an ITT allocation effect.
Required materials and conditions
ITT/PP, efficacy-evaluable inclusion criteria, effect of interest and adjusted/unadjusted analyses
Materials to obtain first
Analysis plan, efficacy-evaluable inclusion criteria and ITT/sensitivity analyses
Further research
A comparison prespecifying and separately reporting allocation and adherence effects
Remaining uncertainty
The representative RR cannot be established as an ITT allocation effect.
Conditions for verification
Preserve the recorded efficacy-evaluable population and explain definitions and uncertainties for allocation effects, adherence effects and adjustment.
Why this condition is needed
The result for 37 efficacy-evaluable participants cannot be inherited as an allocation effect for 51 randomized participants
Application exceptions
Unverified ITT and absence of an ITT result are described only within the retained scope.
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S1

N14 · Who was excluded from the efficacy analysis and how was this handled?

Current findings
The original text describes 27% efficacy-analysis exclusion. Group-specific reasons, handling and sensitivity results are absent from the current summary.
Verification status
Partly verified
Materials actually read
The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.
Why unverified
The denominator difference and original exclusion statement are checked, but the structure and impact of missingness remain unverified.
Reason for missing information
The denominator difference and original exclusion statement are checked, but the structure and impact of missingness remain unverified.
Required materials and conditions
Group attrition/exclusions, reasons, missing-data handling, sensitivity analyses and analysis timing
Materials to obtain first
Participant flow, group exclusion reasons, missing-data handling and sensitivity analyses
Further research
A comparison tracking all outcomes and prespecifying missing-data handling
Remaining uncertainty
The denominator difference and original exclusion statement are checked, but the structure and impact of missingness remain unverified.
Conditions for verification
Preserve the original randomized/evaluable distinction and historical 27% statement, leaving group reasons, handling and bias magnitude unverified.
Why this condition is needed
The limitations of efficacy-analysis selection and missingness must be explained
Application exceptions
Retain the original 27% efficacy-analysis exclusion without calculating a new excluded count or percentage.
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S1

N15 · Which analysis and direction does RR0.71 represent?

Current findings
9/19 versus 12/18 and RR0.71 are retained. Adjustment status, model and absolute difference are unverified in this summary.
Verification status
Partly verified
Materials actually read
The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.
Why unverified
The reported RR and direction are available, but the full effect-estimate definition and absolute effect remain unverified.
Reason for missing information
The reported RR and direction are available, but the full effect-estimate definition and absolute effect remain unverified.
Required materials and conditions
High dose versus low dose, participant event proportions, reported RR, adjustment status and model
Materials to obtain first
The original outcome table, RR analysis/model, adjustment variables and analysis population
Further research
A comparison prospectively reporting relative and absolute effects with their analysis definitions
Remaining uncertainty
The reported RR and direction are available, but the full effect-estimate definition and absolute effect remain unverified.
Conditions for verification
Link reported RR0.71 only to participants with a new adenoma over 0~12 months, marking adjustment, model and absolute-effect uncertainties.
Why this condition is needed
RR, absolute difference, within-group change and adenoma-count decrease are different measures
Application exceptions
Do not recalculate a new RR, absolute difference or percentage from 9/19 versus 12/18.
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S1

N16 · Can the interval and importance of the representative RR be interpreted?

Current findings
The original material explicitly states that the exact 95%CI and P value for the representative comparison are unverified. An importance criterion is also unverified.
Verification status
Unverified
Materials actually read
The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.
Why unverified
Without a reported interval, the relationship between the range of possible effects and importance cannot be assessed.
Reason for missing information
Without a reported interval, the relationship between the range of possible effects and importance cannot be assessed.
Required materials and conditions
The selected comparison's 95%CI, denominators, P value and prespecified importance criterion
Materials to obtain first
The representative outcome table's 95%CI, test definition and basis for importance
Further research
A comparison prospectively justifying importance and precision planning for the clinical question
Remaining uncertainty
Without a reported interval, the relationship between the range of possible effects and importance cannot be assessed.
Conditions for verification
Record the originally reported interval and importance criterion for the selected RR, or why these were not checked, without creating a new grade.
Why this condition is needed
A point estimate alone cannot establish an effect range or importance
Application exceptions
Do not invent a common minimum sample size, CI or importance threshold.
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S1

N17 · Were later P=.02/.04 values attached to the representative recurrence result?

Current findings
P=.02 and .04 are retained as separate results for later adenoma decrease and total size. The exact later analysis interval remains unverified.
Verification status
Met
Materials actually read
The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.
Why unverified
Attribution of numbers and uncertainty boundaries is preserved; significance of the representative RR was not confirmed.
Reason for missing information
Attribution of numbers and uncertainty boundaries is preserved; significance of the representative RR was not confirmed.
Required materials and conditions
Endpoint/analysis-interval correspondence between later decrease, total size and the 0~12-month participant result
Materials to obtain first
Endpoint-specific outcome tables, P-value targets and the later analysis-interval definition
Further research
A report prespecifying analyses by endpoint/time and multiplicity
Remaining uncertainty
Attribution of numbers and uncertainty boundaries is preserved; significance of the representative RR was not confirmed.
Conditions for verification
Separate later-decrease/total-size P values from the selected participant result and retain the exact analysis interval as unverified.
Why this condition is needed
P values from other endpoints must not be converted into significance for the representative RR
Application exceptions
Colonoscopy visits at 6/12 months do not establish the later analysis interval as 6~12 months.
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S1

N18 · Were the selected endpoint, analysis and timing prespecified?

Current findings
The registration field is unverified, and the original material also describes unverified prospective registration. The original protocol and SAP were not read in this conversion.
Verification status
Unverified
Materials actually read
The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.
Why unverified
Agreement or differences between prior plans and actual reporting could not be compared.
Reason for missing information
Agreement or differences between prior plans and actual reporting could not be compared.
Required materials and conditions
Registration, protocol, SAP, primary/secondary endpoints, change history and actual reporting
Materials to obtain first
The original registration number/timing, protocol, SAP and explanations of changes
Further research
A comparison preregistering the question, endpoints, analyses and timing and publishing all results
Remaining uncertainty
Agreement or differences between prior plans and actual reporting could not be compared.
Conditions for verification
Distinguish acquisition/reading of registration/plans, the scope of comparisons with the selected endpoint/analysis/timing and items not compared.
Why this condition is needed
The actual level of comparison between prior planning and selective reporting must be stated
Application exceptions
Unverified registration is not converted into confirmed nonregistration or selective reporting.
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S1

N19 · How were other preventive interventions and adherence handled between groups?

Current findings
A high/low-dose comparison exists, but group-specific medicines, diet, additional intake and adherence data are absent from the current summary.
Verification status
Unverified
Materials actually read
The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.
Why unverified
The scope for checking concurrent interventions, actual exposure differences and handling is insufficient.
Reason for missing information
The scope for checking concurrent interventions, actual exposure differences and handling is insufficient.
Required materials and conditions
Concurrent medicines, diet, additional garlic, rescue treatment and group adherence/changes
Materials to obtain first
Group concomitant-treatment, diet and adherence records and analysis handling
Further research
A comparison prospectively tracking and analyzing concurrent exposures and adherence
Remaining uncertainty
The scope for checking concurrent interventions, actual exposure differences and handling is insufficient.
Conditions for verification
Explain verified and unverified group concomitant use, adherence and changes in relation to the effect of interest.
Why this condition is needed
Differences other than high/low dose must be distinguished from the outcome
Application exceptions
Do not require all changes to be identical between groups or treat missing records as equality.
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S1

N20 · Are a trial's summary and citation counted as separate replications?

Current findings
The evidence and citation link Tanaka2004/PMID15726891. Korean/English/combined summaries are not counted as additional trials.
Verification status
Partly verified
Materials actually read
The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.
Why unverified
Local report links exist, but the scope of all related reports and unique families/participants remains unverified.
Reason for missing information
Local report links exist, but the scope of all related reports and unique families/participants remains unverified.
Required materials and conditions
Tanaka2004, PMID15726891, evidence/citation and related registration/report families
Materials to obtain first
Family comparison of the original report, registration, related reports and included-trial tables
Further research
Independent replication matching product, population and endpoint; first organize existing related-report families
Remaining uncertainty
Local report links exist, but the scope of all related reports and unique families/participants remains unverified.
Conditions for verification
Link the current 1 evidence summary/1 citation and bilingual restatements as the same report clue, leaving global unique-trial/participant counts undetermined.
Why this condition is needed
Repeated citation of one report must not be counted as independent confirmation
Application exceptions
A single current report clue does not establish a count of 1 unique trial across the entire literature.
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S1

N21 · Can differences in results across unique trials be compared?

Current findings
The current retained record historically describes no independent confirmation and provides one report clue. A comparison across the full external literature was not performed in this conversion.
Verification status
Unverified
Materials actually read
The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.
Why unverified
The historical statement of no independent confirmation is not converted into absence of all current studies or confirmed consistency.
Reason for missing information
The historical statement of no independent confirmation is not converted into absence of all current studies or confirmed consistency.
Required materials and conditions
Family-specific results for the same endpoint, formulation/population/timing differences and null/unfavorable results
Materials to obtain first
Existing related-report lists, family-specific results/conditions and inclusion/exclusion records
Further research
Replication of independent studies matching formulation, population and endpoint, with disclosure of the result distribution
Remaining uncertainty
The historical statement of no independent confirmation is not converted into absence of all current studies or confirmed consistency.
Conditions for verification
Distinguish endpoint differences within the retained report clue from unverified comparisons across unique studies.
Why this condition is needed
Inter-study consistency requires identifying unique families first
Application exceptions
Do not label later-endpoint differences as inter-study conflict or external non-search as absence of contrary results.
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S1

N22 · Were product supply, funding and author interests distinguished?

Current findings
The original text describes product supply as I1, while the evidence funding entry says details of AGE-related commercial involvement are unverified.
Verification status
Partly verified
Materials actually read
The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.
Why unverified
A historical product-related clue exists, but funding, supply, author employment/patents and declaration details remain unverified.
Reason for missing information
A historical product-related clue exists, but funding, supply, author employment/patents and declaration details remain unverified.
Required materials and conditions
AGE commercial involvement, product supply, funding, author employment/patents and declared COI
Materials to obtain first
Original-paper funding/COI, product-supply and author-affiliation/patent material
Further research
Independent replication and data disclosure specifying manufacturer roles and funding
Remaining uncertainty
A historical product-related clue exists, but funding, supply, author employment/patents and declaration details remain unverified.
Conditions for verification
Link the original product-supply statement to unverified commercial details and distinguish the actual level of verification for funding and author relationships.
Why this condition is needed
The original I1 axis or product-supply statement does not establish all funding information
Application exceptions
Do not automatically exclude commercial involvement or treat unverified details as independent research.
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S1

N23 · Was the material now read a summary or the original full paper?

Current findings
The whole retained summary, evidence and citation were read. A PubMed link exists, but external abstracts, full text and registration were not read in this conversion.
Verification status
Met
Materials actually read
The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.
Why unverified
The honest distinction in current reading level is checked; original-paper content verification is not established.
Reason for missing information
The honest distinction in current reading level is checked; original-paper content verification is not established.
Required materials and conditions
Retained summary, citation, external abstract/full text, acquisition/reading and original location/identity
Materials to obtain first
Lawful access, acquisition and actual reading of the original paper/supplements, with table/section locations
Further research
First obtain access records for existing originals; access alone does not establish a new effect
Remaining uncertainty
The honest distinction in current reading level is checked; original-paper content verification is not established.
Conditions for verification
Record actual reading of the retained summary separately from unread external material and link reading to exact locations, values and identity.
Why this condition is needed
Needed to avoid presenting summary reading as full-text reading
Application exceptions
External access not attempted does not mean failed access or absence of a publicly available full text.
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S1

N24 · What review date and search scope does this record represent?

Current findings
The original verdict-review date is 2026-09-08, and abstract comparison is a historical statement. Report-specific access date/level and search-cutoff fields are absent.
Verification status
Partly verified
Materials actually read
The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.
Why unverified
A review date and historical statement exist, but the current full-literature search/retraction status and individual access history remain unverified.
Reason for missing information
A review date and historical statement exist, but the current full-literature search/retraction status and individual access history remain unverified.
Required materials and conditions
Original verdict-review date, historical abstract-comparison statement, current local-review date and search/correction/retraction scope
Materials to obtain first
Existing search expressions/scope, access receipts and correction/retraction comparison records
Further research
If an update is requested, a literature update recording search scope/date and exclusion/selection reasons
Remaining uncertainty
A review date and historical statement exist, but the current full-literature search/retraction status and individual access history remain unverified.
Conditions for verification
Separate the original review date 2026-09-08 from the local-conversion date and mark unverified historical access dates/levels and search cutoff.
Why this condition is needed
The original review date must not be used as a current external-access date or search cutoff
Application exceptions
A new search not performed is not described as 0 current studies or no retractions.
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S1

N25 · Does the 12-month adenoma result answer persistence after stopping or cancer prevention?

Current findings
The selected result concerns participants with adenomas over 12 months; the original text says it cannot be extended to colorectal-cancer prevention or complete polyp prevention.
Verification status
Partly verified
Materials actually read
The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.
Why unverified
The current endpoint boundary is checked, but direct evidence for persistence after stopping or cancer events remains unverified in this retained scope.
Reason for missing information
The current endpoint boundary is checked, but direct evidence for persistence after stopping or cancer events remains unverified in this retained scope.
Required materials and conditions
The selected 12-month result, persistence after stopping, clinical cancer events and direct estimates
Materials to obtain first
Follow-up after stopping and direct clinical events such as colorectal cancer
Further research
Follow-up and direct clinical-endpoint research appropriate to long-term persistence/cancer-event questions
Remaining uncertainty
The current endpoint boundary is checked, but direct evidence for persistence after stopping or cancer events remains unverified in this retained scope.
Conditions for verification
Separate the 12-month participant endpoint from unverified extensions concerning persistence after stopping and colorectal-cancer prevention.
Why this condition is needed
Needed to distinguish the original narrow participant endpoint from separate long-term/cancer-prevention questions
Application exceptions
Cancer-event studies are not imposed as mandatory fulfillment conditions for the current adenoma-endpoint record.
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S1

N26 · What adverse events were collected and how?

Current findings
A caution label, unverified long-term safety and concomitant-use cautions are stated. Actual event definitions, collection methods and outcome tables are absent.
Verification status
Unverified
Materials actually read
The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.
Why unverified
A safety label exists, but actual adverse-event collection and occurrence for the selected exposure could not be checked.
Reason for missing information
A safety label exists, but actual adverse-event collection and occurrence for the selected exposure could not be checked.
Required materials and conditions
Event definitions, systematic/spontaneous collection, severity, incident/worsening events and stopping criteria
Materials to obtain first
Trial adverse-event definitions, collection methods, group outcomes and stopping criteria
Further research
Safety follow-up prespecifying event definitions, systematic collection, severity and stopping
Remaining uncertainty
A safety label exists, but actual adverse-event collection and occurrence for the selected exposure could not be checked.
Conditions for verification
Link actual events, collection level and uncertainties for the same population/exposure, keeping efficacy and harm states separate.
Why this condition is needed
A caution label cannot substitute for actual adverse-event collection results
Application exceptions
Unreported harms do not justify deleting efficacy material or declaring absence of harm.
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S1

N27 · Are the times of adverse-event onset, stopping and recovery known?

Current findings
12 months of supplementation is checked, but event-onset, stopping, recovery and re-exposure timelines are absent from the retained material.
Verification status
Unverified
Materials actually read
The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.
Why unverified
Exposure duration cannot be converted into proof of the event's temporal relationship.
Reason for missing information
Exposure duration cannot be converted into proof of the event's temporal relationship.
Required materials and conditions
Exposure start/stop, event onset, recovery, re-exposure, latency and follow-up windows
Materials to obtain first
Event timelines, stopping/recovery and exposure/follow-up records
Further research
Safety research prospectively tracking exposure and event timelines
Remaining uncertainty
Exposure duration cannot be converted into proof of the event's temporal relationship.
Conditions for verification
Distinguish the 12-month supplementation record from verified/unverified event timelines without inferring recovery or re-exposure.
Why this condition is needed
Temporal relationships and long-term windows require review when actual events are reported
Application exceptions
12 months of supplementation is not used as latency or complete follow-up for all harms.
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S1

N28 · Can high-dose and low-dose risks be compared?

Current findings
Efficacy concerns active high/low dose, but group harm events and comparative-risk estimates are absent from the current summary.
Verification status
Unverified
Materials actually read
The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.
Why unverified
The comparison design does not establish verified group safety.
Reason for missing information
The comparison design does not establish verified group safety.
Required materials and conditions
Group events, comparator, analysis population and actual comparative-risk estimates
Materials to obtain first
Group harm outcomes, exposure/analysis denominators and risk comparisons
Further research
A prespecified safety comparison of the same high/low-dose product; a nonexposure question requires a separate comparison
Remaining uncertainty
The comparison design does not establish verified group safety.
Conditions for verification
Distinguish the active high/low-dose design from whether actual group harm comparisons are provided, retaining missing comparative estimates as unverified.
Why this condition is needed
An efficacy comparator does not guarantee the existence of harm-comparison data
Application exceptions
The low-dose control is not substituted for nonexposure or background incidence.
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S1

N29 · Are event and exposure denominators available for harm frequency?

Current findings
Randomized/efficacy-evaluable denominators exist, but separate harm events, safety denominators and exposure time remain unverified in the summary.
Verification status
Unverified
Materials actually read
The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.
Why unverified
The event-denominator link needed to state harm frequency remains unverified.
Reason for missing information
The event-denominator link needed to state harm frequency remains unverified.
Required materials and conditions
Group exposed populations, affected people/event counts, exposure/follow-up time and collection scope
Materials to obtain first
Group safety-analysis populations and event/exposure-time tables
Further research
Follow-up publishing safety denominators, exposure time and all events together
Remaining uncertainty
The event-denominator link needed to state harm frequency remains unverified.
Conditions for verification
Present frequencies only from reported values linking harm events to their exposure/follow-up denominators, retaining unverified denominators.
Why this condition is needed
The efficacy denominators of 51/37 participants must not substitute for safety-analysis denominators
Application exceptions
Do not use efficacy events 9/19 versus 12/18 as adverse-event counts or calculate new incidence.
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S1

N30 · Were antithrombotic or procedure-related details checked?

Current findings
The original text calls for checking anticoagulants, antiplatelet medicines and peri-procedural use. Actual concomitant-use/event records for trial participants are absent.
Verification status
Partly verified
Materials actually read
The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.
Why unverified
The concomitant-use context needing review is recorded, but actual interactions and alternative causes remain unverified.
Reason for missing information
The concomitant-use context needing review is recorded, but actual interactions and alternative causes remain unverified.
Required materials and conditions
Actual concomitant medicines, procedures, baseline conditions, alternative causes and group exposure/adjustment
Materials to obtain first
Actual concomitant medicines, procedure schedules, baseline events and group harm/adjustment data
Further research
Appropriate safety observation for clinically relevant concomitant-use/procedural settings
Remaining uncertainty
The concomitant-use context needing review is recorded, but actual interactions and alternative causes remain unverified.
Conditions for verification
Distinguish the original concomitant-use/procedural caution from unverified actual co-exposures and alternative explanations.
Why this condition is needed
Original cautions and actual participant concomitant-use records are different information
Application exceptions
The caution is not treated as a finding that an interaction was observed in this trial.
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S1

N31 · Who was missing from safety follow-up?

Current findings
Efficacy-analysis exclusion is described, but safety follow-up losses and reasons for noncollection are not separately verified.
Verification status
Unverified
Materials actually read
The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.
Why unverified
Efficacy missingness is not inherited as safety missingness, and bias magnitude is not established.
Reason for missing information
Efficacy missingness is not inherited as safety missingness, and bias magnitude is not established.
Required materials and conditions
Safety collection/selection, follow-up losses, group noncollection and disclosure of all events
Materials to obtain first
Safety participant flow, reasons for noncollection and disclosure records for all events
Further research
Observation disclosing safety follow-up for all exposed participants and reasons for noncollection
Remaining uncertainty
Efficacy missingness is not inherited as safety missingness, and bias magnitude is not established.
Conditions for verification
Separate efficacy-population exclusions from safety follow-up losses and retain unverified collection/selection/missingness.
Why this condition is needed
Efficacy-analysis exclusion and safety noncollection may differ
Application exceptions
The original 27% efficacy-analysis exclusion is not converted into a safety dropout rate.
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S1

N32 · Are harms of the same preparation recorded in other independent material?

Current findings
The same caution is repeated across languages/summaries, but an independent harm-event list or family information is currently absent.
Verification status
Unverified
Materials actually read
The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.
Why unverified
Repeated wording is not summed as unique events, and the overall number of harm reports remains undetermined.
Reason for missing information
Repeated wording is not summed as unique events, and the overall number of harm reports remains undetermined.
Required materials and conditions
Unique event/study families, the same exposure/event, contrary records and distinctions from recitation/regulatory material
Materials to obtain first
Original events, formulation/dose and family links in existing safety reports/regulatory documents
Further research
Independent safety observation in appropriate populations using the same preparation, with disclosure of contrary records
Remaining uncertainty
Repeated wording is not summed as unique events, and the overall number of harm reports remains undetermined.
Conditions for verification
Distinguish sources of current harm statements, recitation and unverified relationships between unique events.
Why this condition is needed
Repetition of the same caution is not an independent harm event
Application exceptions
Korean/English/combined restatements or signals from other garlic formulations are not counted as independent events.
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S1

N33 · Can harms beyond the small 1-year dataset be described?

Current findings
The original text says a small 1-year dataset cannot establish long-term safety of intake for cancer prevention.
Verification status
Partly verified
Materials actually read
The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.
Why unverified
The current limitation is stated, but direct long-term, rare-event and vulnerable-group safety material remains unverified in this scope.
Reason for missing information
The current limitation is stated, but direct long-term, rare-event and vulnerable-group safety material remains unverified in this scope.
Required materials and conditions
Long-term and rare harms, vulnerable populations, baseline risk, exposures/interactions and appropriate follow-up
Materials to obtain first
Exposure-event material on long-term follow-up, vulnerable groups, rare events and interactions
Further research
Follow-up, registration and safety observation appropriate to long-term/special-population questions
Remaining uncertainty
The current limitation is stated, but direct long-term, rare-event and vulnerable-group safety material remains unverified in this scope.
Conditions for verification
Distinguish the current supplementation/population scope from direct or unverified evidence on long-term, rare-event and vulnerable-group harms.
Why this condition is needed
Long-term safety of intake for cancer prevention cannot be established from short, small datasets
Application exceptions
All rare-event/vulnerable-group studies are not imposed as mandatory conditions for the narrow 12-month efficacy result.
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S1

N34 · Is the caution a signal, comparative risk or causal statement?

Current findings
The current record contains caution, unverified long-term safety and a need to check concomitant use. Actual harm events, comparative risk and causal estimates remain unverified.
Verification status
Partly verified
Materials actually read
The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.
Why unverified
The original caution's scope is preserved; safety outcomes or individual safety are not confirmed.
Reason for missing information
The original caution's scope is preserved; safety outcomes or individual safety are not confirmed.
Required materials and conditions
Actual harm events, design/comparison, denominators, timing, alternatives and currently supportable wording
Materials to obtain first
Original safety material linking events, comparisons, denominators, timing and alternatives
Further research
Comparative safety research appropriate to the question; first check the basis of the original caution
Remaining uncertainty
The original caution's scope is preserved; safety outcomes or individual safety are not confirmed.
Conditions for verification
Separate the original safety caution from the level of verification for actual events/risks/causal material, retaining the limits of supportable wording.
Why this condition is needed
General caution or insufficient material must not be converted into individual safety or causal results
Application exceptions
Do not use the efficacy RR as a causal harm estimate or create personal dosing instructions.
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S1

N35 · Were original grade, score and axes inherited as new condition states?

Current findings
Original C46, Caution, all axes/booleans, Korean/English text, empty arrays, URLs and corrections are preserved as native values in the retained summary. No new clinical judgment is made.
Verification status
Met
Materials actually read
The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.
Why unverified
Preservation of the original verdict and separation from new condition states are checked; the original grade is not recertified.
Reason for missing information
Preservation of the original verdict and separation from new condition states are checked; the original grade is not recertified.
Required materials and conditions
Native values for original C46, Caution, all axes, empty subclaims, Korean/English text, original URLs and corrections
Materials to obtain first
Original canonical/revised versions, locations and original-byte preservation records
Further research
Traceability of original text, versions and change events rather than a new research requirement
Remaining uncertainty
Preservation of the original verdict and separation from new condition states are checked; the original grade is not recertified.
Conditions for verification
Preserve all original bytes and source locations without creating new scores/grades, axis-derived fulfillment or independent clinical certification.
Why this condition is needed
Original history and current item-specific condition states must remain separate
Application exceptions
The original Codex independent-cross-check label is not promoted into current independent clinical certification.
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S1

N36 · Were generic English wording and historical correction statements preserved?

Current findings
The current English evidence/citation contains generic-principle wording, while corrections historically describe specific translation replacement. Both are preserved as original values.
Verification status
Met
Materials actually read
The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.
Why unverified
Original values and historical statements are preserved separately; specific English numerical verification or reconstruction of history is not established.
Reason for missing information
Original values and historical statements are preserved separately; specific English numerical verification or reconstruction of history is not established.
Required materials and conditions
Current original English evidence/citation values, corrections dated 2026-09-14 and historical versus current access levels
Materials to obtain first
Canonical versions before/after correction and contemporary verification/access receipts
Further research
Traceability of bilingual original values and change history rather than a new clinical research requirement
Remaining uncertainty
Original values and historical statements are preserved separately; specific English numerical verification or reconstruction of history is not established.
Conditions for verification
Preserve current English wording and corrections as original values without presenting general-principle sentences as verification of specific denominators, results or funding.
Why this condition is needed
A historical statement of specific translation replacement cannot establish numerical verification of current generic wording
Application exceptions
Do not replace current original English values with new specific translations or reconstruct/judge the historical correction itself.
Referenced methods
Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained report. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S1