Aged garlic extract 2.4-7.2 g/day × Reduction of ex vivo platelet aggregation

Required evidence, verification status and materials actually read
Item	AVerification status	BReading scope	CReview item	DCurrent findings	EWhy unverified	FRequired materials and conditions	GFurther research
1	Met	Full text not readStored summary read	N01 · Evidence conditionAre the broad original claim and the PAF evidence-gap question distinguished?Required	The original wording is reduced ex vivo platelet aggregation. This table asks about direct AGE-versus-placebo material and formulation identity for PAF-induced aggregation. The original verdict has an empty list of separate claims; this question is not an originally listed subclaim. S01 S02 S03	The fixed boundary distinguishes the broad original wording from the derived question without declaring a new effect.	The original broad claim, derived boundary, target endpoint and change history.	If the boundary changes, compare inclusion/exclusion for the broad original claim and derived comparison together.
2	Unverified	Full text not readStored summary read	N02 · Evidence conditionIs the 1995 garlic preparation in the PAF material identical to the AGE product?Required	A broad AGE-capsule identity and a 1995 garlic-preparation report are retained. The latter includes PAF, but identity with AGE in product, aging/extraction process and SAC specification remains unverified. S01 S02	Direct product material verifying that the PAF candidate's formulation matches the selected AGE is absent.	The 1995 original methods: product name, manufacture/extraction, SAC, ingredients/batch, and AGE product specifications.	Compare each report's product specifications to establish formulation identity before assessing PAF eligibility.
3	Unverified	Full text not readStored summary read	N03 · Evidence conditionAre the PAF candidate's route, actual dose and intake verified?Required	The broad claim conditions record an oral AGE dose-ranging trial at 2.4, 4.8 and 7.2 g/day. These doses belong to the 34-person AGE report's context and cannot be transferred as doses, adherence or product amounts for the 1995 PAF candidate. S01 S02	The selected direct PAF candidate's route, dose/specification and intake information is unverified.	The PAF candidate's administration route, product/active amount, frequency, medication records and adherence criteria.	After fixing product identity, compare actual exposure with planned doses and analyses.
4	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N04 · Evidence conditionAre the PAF candidate's actual population, baseline status and eligibility verified?Required	The 1995 candidate is retained as a small sample of healthy men. Age, eligibility/exclusions, baseline platelet function and medication exposure remain unverified; matching the direct AGE population also first requires formulation verification. S02	Some population categories of the PAF candidate are known, while actual eligibility, baseline status and AGE applicability remain unresolved.	The 1995 population/eligibility criteria, baseline table, medication/disease exclusions and actual analysis population.	Compare formulation and population conditions together to assess direct applicability to the selected question.
5	Unverified	Full text not readStored summary read	N05 · Evidence conditionAre the PAF candidate's intake duration and blood-draw/testing times verified?Required	The broad claim conditions describe only short term with durations varying across trials. The PAF candidate's exact intake duration, blood-draw/testing time and discontinuation/washout remain unverified in retained summaries. S02	A direct schedule establishing the PAF response's timing conditions is absent.	The PAF candidate's dosing/discontinuation schedule, blood-draw/testing times, washout and sequence.	Link temporal order and testing time to original methods/results, keeping different times separate.
6	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N06 · Evidence conditionAre the PAF endpoint clue and exact aggregation measure verified?Required	The 1995 evidence endpoint lists ADP, PAF and collagen aggregation. PAF concentration, assay method, maximum aggregation/threshold, unit and exact result value remain unverified. S02	The PAF endpoint name is known, but the actual measurement conditions remain unresolved.	PAF assay specimens, agonist concentration, equipment, maximum-aggregation/threshold definition and unit/direction.	Compare methods and result tables, linking only matching PAF measures.
7	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N07 · Evidence conditionAre the 1995 opposing description and PAF-specific numerical results and intervals verified?Required	The 1995 result is no significant in vivo oral effect, and PAF appears among the endpoints. PAF-specific estimates, CI, tests, denominators and AGE identity remain unverified. Non-significance is not converted into an effect of 0 or equivalence. S02	The opposing report context is retained, while direct PAF-specific effects and precision remain unresolved.	The 1995 PAF-specific result tables, models/tests, effects/CI and product identity.	Extract results by agonist and compare formulation matching and test direction.
8	Unverified	Full text not readStored summary read	N08 · Evidence conditionIs a direct AGE-versus-placebo comparison result for PAF verified?Required	A direct AGE-versus-placebo PAF result is unverified within the current 3 evidence entries/3 citations. The 1995 candidate has unverified product identity, and the 34-person AGE report concerns other agonists. S01 S02 S03	Material or gateway existence differs from an eligible direct PAF result, which is currently unverified.	Placebo-comparison methods, results and arm-specific analysis tables for PAF with verified AGE formulation.	Fix product identity and the PAF measure before assessing direct comparison material against eligibility criteria.
9	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N09 · Evidence conditionAre the PAF candidate's blinding, allocation and co-intervention procedures verified?Required	The 1995 candidate is retained as a double-blind placebo trial. Details of randomization status, allocation/concealment, baseline balance, co-interventions/rescue treatment and measurement blinding are unverified. S02	Blinding and placebo labels are known, but actual design/conduct and intervention-attribution material remain unresolved.	The 1995 original methods, allocation/concealment, baseline tables, co-interventions/rescue treatment and blinding material.	Compare methods, baseline and co-intervention records for arm-specific differences that could explain PAF results.
10	Met	Full text not readStored summary read	N10 · Evidence conditionWere the 34-person AGE results kept separate from direct PAF results?Required	S01 is a 34-person AGE dose-ranging trial. Results include partial collagen/epinephrine reductions and a weak highest-dose ADP threshold signal; a current PAF result is not specified. S01	Known S01 results were retained with their agonists rather than promoted to PAF results.	S01's full agonist plans, result tables, specimen/population links and whether PAF was included.	Compare planned agonists and result tables to distinguish PAF measurement, omission and non-planning.
11	Unverified	Full text not readStored summary read	N11 · Evidence conditionAre PAF allocation, measurement and analysis n and missingness verified?Required	The 1995 report retains only a small sample of healthy men. Arm-specific PAF n, losses, missingness and analysis population are unverified. The 34 people in another AGE report are not the PAF analysis n. S01 S02	Without exact selected-response denominators and missingness handling, the direct estimate's population cannot be verified.	PAF-specific arm flowcharts, analysis populations, completion/missingness n and handling rules.	Link paper flow and assay-specific population tables to assess cross-use of denominators and selective losses.
12	Unverified	Full text not readStored summary read	N12 · Evidence conditionAre between/within-arm contrasts, models, variance and CI for the PAF estimate verified?Required	PAF-specific between/within-arm contrasts, effect values, SD/SE, CI, adjustment and important-difference criteria remain unverified. Report-level non-significance or broad EX/CX axes do not substitute for them. S02	Direct data for PAF estimates and variance are absent.	PAF-specific analysis plans, estimates, variance/CI and the basis for an important difference.	Compare the actual estimand and intervals with verified important-difference criteria without new calculations.
13	Unverified	Full text not readStored summary read	N13 · Evidence conditionDo prespecified PAF endpoints, times and analyses agree with published results?Required	All 3 original evidence registration fields say not verified. Agreement or changes between prespecified PAF endpoints, analysis/multiplicity plans and actual results remain unverified. S01 S02 S03	Direct registration/planning material is absent, so PAF prespecification and selective reporting cannot be established.	Original registration/protocols, PAF plans, multiplicity rules, result tables and change history.	Compare initial plans and agonist-specific published results, distinguishing planning, omission and changes.
14	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N14 · Evidence conditionAre overall review results and the directly eligible PAF/AGE subset verified?Required	The 2022 review reports 12 RCTs, 595 people, 6 positive and the rest null, with heterogeneity preventing a conclusion. PAF-specific eligible AGE trials, results and denominators are unverified in the current summary. S03	The review's overall direction and limitations are known, while its eligible selected PAF subset remains unresolved.	Review included-trial tables, results by product/agonist/time/analysis and overlap tables.	Separate included trials by formulation and agonist, comparing both positive and no-difference results.
15	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N15 · Evidence conditionIs overlap between the same AGE trial and review-included trials verified?Required	S01 contains multiple agonist results from a 34-person dose trial. S02 is another preparation's 1995 report; S03 is a review of 12 RCTs. Review inclusion, overlap with S01/S02 and unique direct PAF study families remain unverified. S01 S02 S03	Multiple results from one trial and the review type are known, while complete study-family/overlap links remain unresolved.	Review included-trial tables, registration/paper identifiers, recruitment sites/periods and product/endpoint links.	Build report-trial-population-endpoint links to connect multiple reports and review recitations to the same families.
16	Unverified	Full text not readStored summary read	N16 · Evidence conditionIs independent replication under matching AGE/PAF conditions verified?Required	The direct AGE/PAF conditions themselves and unique independent replications are unverified in current summaries. The original independent-opposing-result label is historical wording for the broad 1995 report. S01 S02 S03	Other-preparation candidates or the overall review cannot establish direct replication of the selected response.	Unique-trial results with verified formulation/PAF conditions and study-family links.	Fix direct eligibility before comparing results and condition differences across unique study families.
17	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N17 · Evidence conditionAre each report's funding clues and product/author independence verified?Supplementary; required for independence claims	S01 product-support details and S02 funding are unverified. S03 is academic research with mixed original-trial funding. Product provision, author employment/patents, COI and AGE product relationships for the PAF candidate remain unverified. S01 S02 S03	Some report-specific funding records exist, while selected-response independence details remain unresolved.	Original reports' funding/COI, product provision, authors/institutions/patents and included-trial tables.	Compare funding and product/author relationships report by report, retaining unverified independence.
18	Unverified	Full text not readStored summary read	N18 · Evidence conditionAre bleeding events, collection, denominators and timing under the same exposure verified?Supplementary; required for harm claims	The original text says clinical thrombosis or bleeding was not measured in these trials. Bleeding events, person counts, collection, discontinuation and comparison/follow-up denominators for the PAF candidate remain unverified. S01 S02	Platelet-response material does not provide actual bleeding-event counts.	Exposure with matching formulation: AE definitions, collection/severity, event/person counts, exposure/follow-up, discontinuation and comparisons.	Separate aggregation results from safety populations/follow-up and compare events, timing and denominators.
19	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N19 · Evidence conditionAre the original bleeding warning and direct co-medication/vulnerable-group data verified?Supplementary; required for the stated safety claim	The original warning prohibits unsupervised use with anticoagulants/antiplatelets, bleeding disorders and around surgery. Direct AGE/PAF exposure, events, follow-up and interaction magnitude in these groups remain unverified. S01 S02 S03	The original warning names the groups, but direct group-specific information remains unresolved.	Group-specific formulation, exposure, events, follow-up/alternative explanations and warning sources.	Compare original warning evidence and group-specific safety material separately without certifying personal safety.
20	Not applicable	Full text not readStored summary read	N20 · Evidence conditionDoes the PAF response answer thrombosis prevention or aspirin replacement?Supplementary; required only for clinical extensions	Direct material for the PAF response itself is unverified. No thrombosis-prevention, thrombolysis, aspirin-replacement or bleeding-safety claim is made. S01 S02 S03	Clinical events/replacement are not direct results of this aggregation-gap question, so separate clinical confirmation is not imposed as a current required condition.	A separate event question's definition, comparator, follow-up, denominator and clinical results.	If an event question is requested, review separate clinical endpoints and long-term/event-follow-up studies.
21	Not applicable	Full text not readStored summary read	N21 · Evidence conditionAre optimal dose, long-term persistence and special subgroups part of this question?Supplementary; required only for extension claims	This question checks direct AGE PAF evidence and formulation identity. Optimal dose, persistence after discontinuation and special-subgroup effects are not newly claimed. S01 S02	These extension obligations lie outside the current question; the broad dose trial is not converted into PAF dose optimization.	If extension is requested: direct PAF dose comparisons, follow-up and prespecified subgroup/interaction material.	After direct PAF conditions are verified, assess eligible designs/results for each separate extension question.
22	Met	Full text not readStored summary read	N22 · Evidence conditionWere local-summary reading and unread linked external materials distinguished?Required	The complete retained summary, 3 evidence entries and 3 citations were read. External PubMed/DOI gateways and original papers remain unattempted, unacquired and unread; no direct PAF result was newly acquired. S01 S02 S03	Actual local reading was separated from unread external material and linked to exact summary locations and identity checks.	Subsequent material-specific access/acquisition/reading records, versions, original locations and physical material.	In authorized subsequent review, record external acquisition/reading as separate events and compare with retained summaries.
23	Met	Full text not readStored summary read	N23 · Evidence conditionWere the original review date, correction date and individual access dates distinguished?Required	The original review date 2026-09-08 and generic-English-wording correction date 2026-09-14 are retained. Material-specific access-date, level and location fields are absent and unrecorded; current local reading has its own actual timestamp. S01 S02 S03	Event-specific dates and absent fields were retained without backdating historical/current reading.	Historical material-specific access/version records and complete before/after correction versions.	Link and compare original review, correction and actual access events separately.
24	Unverified	Full text not readStored summary read	N24 · Evidence conditionAre search/selection records available to verify the complete current PAF/AGE evidence?Required	Unverified direct PAF results are limited to the current 3 evidence entries/3 citations in retained summaries. The original research-description separation of the 34-person trial, review and opposing trial is historical wording; no new exhaustive search, registration/unpublished or retraction check was performed. S01 S02 S03	Search logs and material establishing completeness beyond the current scope are absent.	Historical queries/dates, selection/exclusion, unpublished/correction/retraction checks and product/agonist-specific candidate logs.	In an authorized separate update, fix the product/PAF question, reproduce the search scope and compare potentially omitted candidates.
25	Met	Full text not readStored summary read	N25 · Evidence conditionWere the original broad C46, axes and all results distinguished from a derived grade?Required	Original C46, B/S/R0/I1/EX/B2/CX, Warning and all original results are retained as historical records of the broad parent verdict. The individual PAF grade is unrecorded. Generic English sample-size/result wording does not create selected-response values or successful access. S01 S02 S03	Complete original typed values and derived identity were retained without creating a separate effect or grade.	The complete original summary, input identity, boundary/verdict/correction events and separate-grade policy.	Compare complete original text, preserved case values and change events to check that no new derived verdict was created.

No items match your search or filter.

25 itemsWhat the statuses mean

Assessment scope

Stored-material review date: 2026-10-05
Original evidence review date: 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 displayed material date is the case-record review date. Original verdict review, correction and case review dates are not historical access dates for individual external materials or search cut-offs. Historical external access dates and reading scope are unrecorded; external access was not attempted in this conversion.
Population: The broad scope mainly concerns healthy adults. The 1995 PAF candidate is retained only as a small sample of healthy men; exact eligibility, baseline status and matching to the direct AGE population remain unverified.
Ingredient, formulation and route: The selected conditions concern oral AGE capsules. AGE identity, product, aging/extraction process and SAC specification of the PAF-containing garlic-preparation candidate remain unverified. Other garlic preparations are not substituted.
Dose: The broad AGE doses of 2.4, 4.8 and 7.2 g/day belong to a 34-person dose trial. The PAF candidate’s actual route, dose, active specification and intake/adherence remain unverified; these doses are not transferred.
Comparator: The selected question is AGE versus placebo. A direct placebo comparison matching the PAF candidate’s actual product, population, measure and time, its analysis population and between-arm contrast remain unverified.
Measured outcome: The question concerns gaps in direct PAF-induced platelet-aggregation evidence and formulation identity. The PAF endpoint name is retained, but exact measure, unit, concentration, specimen/equipment, numerical results, CI and denominators remain unverified.
Duration: The PAF candidate’s exact intake duration, blood-draw/testing time and discontinuation/washout remain unverified. The broad short-term, trial-varying description is not converted into a specific PAF duration.
Questions outside this scope: Original C, 46 points, Warning and B/S/R0/I1/EX/B2/CX are historical records of the broad parent verdict. No separate PAF grade or direct effect is created.; S01’s 34 people are the overall context of another agonist/dose trial. They are neither transferred as arm-specific PAF analysis counts or unique-replication participants nor added together.; The 1995 PAF candidate is a garlic preparation with unverified AGE identity. Report-level no-significant-oral-effect wording does not establish a PAF-specific effect of 0, equivalence or direct refutation of identical AGE.; The review’s 12 RCTs, 595 people and 6 positive trials are overall summary counts. Directly eligible AGE/PAF trials, results, denominators, overlap and unique replications remain unverified.; Clinical thrombosis prevention, aspirin replacement, optimal dose and long-term persistence are separate extensions beyond this narrow gap question. Bleeding warnings are retained; unverified harms are not converted into safety or absence of events.

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.

S01 · The effects of aged garlic extract on platelet aggregation and adhesion in humans

PubMed

Material type: A retained bibliographic/evidence summary. The actual external material type/version and full-text provision 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: 34 people; partial collagen/epinephrine reductions; a weak ADP threshold signal only at the highest dose. A direct result for the selected response is unverified in the current summary.
Record level: Context from the retained summary; direct AGE/PAF observations, analysis denominators and numerical results remain unverified.
Study overlap and independent replication: S01 concerns other agonists in a shared 34-person AGE dose trial. S02 reports another PAF-containing preparation with unverified AGE identity; S03 is a review of 12 RCTs and 595 people. Unique direct PAF trials/participants and review overlap remain unverified.

Public availability, access and reading status by material
Material	Public availability	Access status	Actually read	Notes
External PubMed bibliographic/abstract gateway	External access not attempted; not acquired; unread	External access not attempted; not acquired	Not read	This is the retained PubMed link. Its current response, abstract provision/content and public access were not checked. A report linked to retained summaries and citations. External gateways, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted in this conversion. The displayed material date is the case-record review date. Original verdict review, correction and case review dates are not historical access dates for individual external materials or search cut-offs. Historical external access dates and reading scope are unrecorded; external access was not attempted in this conversion.
External DOI/publisher gateway	External access not attempted; not acquired; unread	External access not attempted; not acquired	Not read	This is the retained DOI link. Its current response, publisher provision, original-text version and public access were not checked. A report linked to retained summaries and citations. External gateways, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted in this conversion. The displayed material date is the case-record review date. Original verdict review, correction and case review dates are not historical access dates for individual external materials or search cut-offs. Historical external access dates and reading scope are unrecorded; external access was not attempted in this conversion.
Original paper full text; direct location/version unverified	External access not attempted; not acquired; unread	External access not attempted; not acquired	Not read	The original paper’s direct physical location, version, provision, public availability, acquisition and actual reading remain unverified. No direct URL is invented. A report linked to retained summaries and citations. External gateways, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted in this conversion. The displayed material date is the case-record review date. Original verdict review, correction and case review dates are not historical access dates for individual external materials or search cut-offs. Historical external access dates and reading scope are unrecorded; external access was not attempted in this conversion.
Retained verdict summary	Retained verdict summary read	Retained copy acquired; summary read	Stored existing review summary read	Relevant retained summary, evidence and citation content was read. This is not the original clinical paper’s bytes or full text. A report linked to retained summaries and citations. External gateways, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted in this conversion. The displayed material date is the case-record review date. Original verdict review, correction and case review dates are not historical access dates for individual external materials or search cut-offs. Historical external access dates and reading scope are unrecorded; external access was not attempted in this conversion.

S02 · Effect of a garlic preparation on in vitro platelet aggregation in healthy subjects

PubMed

Material type: A retained bibliographic/evidence summary. The actual external material type/version and full-text provision 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: A small sample of healthy men; ADP, PAF and collagen; no significant in vivo oral effect. AGE product identity and selected-response-specific estimates/CI remain unverified.
Record level: Context from the retained summary; direct AGE/PAF observations, analysis denominators and numerical results remain unverified.
Study overlap and independent replication: S01 concerns other agonists in a shared 34-person AGE dose trial. S02 reports another PAF-containing preparation with unverified AGE identity; S03 is a review of 12 RCTs and 595 people. Unique direct PAF trials/participants and review overlap remain unverified.

Public availability, access and reading status by material
Material	Public availability	Access status	Actually read	Notes
External PubMed bibliographic/abstract gateway	External access not attempted; not acquired; unread	External access not attempted; not acquired	Not read	This is the retained PubMed link. Its current response, abstract provision/content and public access were not checked. A report linked to retained summaries and citations. External gateways, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted in this conversion. The displayed material date is the case-record review date. Original verdict review, correction and case review dates are not historical access dates for individual external materials or search cut-offs. Historical external access dates and reading scope are unrecorded; external access was not attempted in this conversion.
External DOI/publisher gateway	External access not attempted; not acquired; unread	External access not attempted; not acquired	Not read	This is the retained DOI link. Its current response, publisher provision, original-text version and public access were not checked. A report linked to retained summaries and citations. External gateways, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted in this conversion. The displayed material date is the case-record review date. Original verdict review, correction and case review dates are not historical access dates for individual external materials or search cut-offs. Historical external access dates and reading scope are unrecorded; external access was not attempted in this conversion.
Original paper full text; direct location/version unverified	External access not attempted; not acquired; unread	External access not attempted; not acquired	Not read	The original paper’s direct physical location, version, provision, public availability, acquisition and actual reading remain unverified. No direct URL is invented. A report linked to retained summaries and citations. External gateways, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted in this conversion. The displayed material date is the case-record review date. Original verdict review, correction and case review dates are not historical access dates for individual external materials or search cut-offs. Historical external access dates and reading scope are unrecorded; external access was not attempted in this conversion.
Retained verdict summary	Retained verdict summary read	Retained copy acquired; summary read	Stored existing review summary read	Relevant retained summary, evidence and citation content was read. This is not the original clinical paper’s bytes or full text. A report linked to retained summaries and citations. External gateways, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted in this conversion. The displayed material date is the case-record review date. Original verdict review, correction and case review dates are not historical access dates for individual external materials or search cut-offs. Historical external access dates and reading scope are unrecorded; external access was not attempted in this conversion.

S03 · Garlic supplementation and platelet aggregation: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

PubMed

Material type: A retained bibliographic/evidence summary. The actual external material type/version and full-text provision 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: 12 RCTs and 595 people; 6 positive and the rest null; heterogeneity prevents a conclusion. Included trials, results and overlap for the selected response remain unverified.
Record level: Context from the retained summary; direct AGE/PAF observations, analysis denominators and numerical results remain unverified.
Study overlap and independent replication: S01 concerns other agonists in a shared 34-person AGE dose trial. S02 reports another PAF-containing preparation with unverified AGE identity; S03 is a review of 12 RCTs and 595 people. Unique direct PAF trials/participants and review overlap remain unverified.

Public availability, access and reading status by material
Material	Public availability	Access status	Actually read	Notes
External PubMed bibliographic/abstract gateway	External access not attempted; not acquired; unread	External access not attempted; not acquired	Not read	This is the retained PubMed link. Its current response, abstract provision/content and public access were not checked. A report linked to retained summaries and citations. External gateways, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted in this conversion. The displayed material date is the case-record review date. Original verdict review, correction and case review dates are not historical access dates for individual external materials or search cut-offs. Historical external access dates and reading scope are unrecorded; external access was not attempted in this conversion.
External DOI/publisher gateway	External access not attempted; not acquired; unread	External access not attempted; not acquired	Not read	This is the retained DOI link. Its current response, publisher provision, original-text version and public access were not checked. A report linked to retained summaries and citations. External gateways, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted in this conversion. The displayed material date is the case-record review date. Original verdict review, correction and case review dates are not historical access dates for individual external materials or search cut-offs. Historical external access dates and reading scope are unrecorded; external access was not attempted in this conversion.
Original paper full text; direct location/version unverified	External access not attempted; not acquired; unread	External access not attempted; not acquired	Not read	The original paper’s direct physical location, version, provision, public availability, acquisition and actual reading remain unverified. No direct URL is invented. A report linked to retained summaries and citations. External gateways, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted in this conversion. The displayed material date is the case-record review date. Original verdict review, correction and case review dates are not historical access dates for individual external materials or search cut-offs. Historical external access dates and reading scope are unrecorded; external access was not attempted in this conversion.
Retained verdict summary	Retained verdict summary read	Retained copy acquired; summary read	Stored existing review summary read	Relevant retained summary, evidence and citation content was read. This is not the original clinical paper’s bytes or full text. A report linked to retained summaries and citations. External gateways, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted in this conversion. The displayed material date is the case-record review date. Original verdict review, correction and case review dates are not historical access dates for individual external materials or search cut-offs. Historical external access dates and reading scope are unrecorded; external access was not attempted in this conversion.

Report counts versus independent study counts

S01 concerns other agonists in a shared 34-person AGE dose trial. S02 reports another PAF-containing preparation with unverified AGE identity; S03 is a review of 12 RCTs and 595 people. Unique direct PAF trials/participants and review overlap remain unverified.

Review criteria

Version 1.1 · Criteria record date 2026-10-05. 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 · Are the broad original claim and the PAF evidence-gap question distinguished?

Required materials and conditions: The original broad claim, derived boundary, target endpoint and change history.
Conditions for verification: Preserve the original verdict claim and separately fix the question of direct AGE-versus-placebo evidence and formulation identity for PAF-induced aggregation.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: This question is neither a new clinical verdict nor an originally listed subclaim.
Why this condition is needed: The broad parent verdict is not automatically promoted to an agonist-specific effect.
Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

N02 · Is the 1995 garlic preparation in the PAF material identical to the AGE product?

Required materials and conditions: The 1995 original methods: product name, manufacture/extraction, SAC, ingredients/batch, and AGE product specifications.
Conditions for verification: Directly verify the 1995 preparation's identity, standardization and product, and its identity with AGE capsules.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Garlic preparations, raw garlic, powder, oil, allicin, black garlic and isolated SAC are not assumed to be AGE.
Why this condition is needed: The formulation-identity gap is central to directness.
Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

N03 · Are the PAF candidate's route, actual dose and intake verified?

Required materials and conditions: The PAF candidate's administration route, product/active amount, frequency, medication records and adherence criteria.
Conditions for verification: Verify the actual route, product amount, active specification and intake/adherence of the selected oral AGE and PAF candidate.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Known broad AGE doses alone do not make the PAF dose partly verified.
Why this condition is needed: Doses for other agonists are not copied as PAF trial doses.
Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

N04 · Are the PAF candidate's actual population, baseline status and eligibility verified?

Required materials and conditions: The 1995 population/eligibility criteria, baseline table, medication/disease exclusions and actual analysis population.
Conditions for verification: Verify the small-sample healthy-men clue alongside actual age, eligibility/exclusions, baseline platelet function and co-medication.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: This is not applied to antiplatelet co-users, thrombosis patients or all adults.
Why this condition is needed: A population label and direct eligibility are separate.
Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

N05 · Are the PAF candidate's intake duration and blood-draw/testing times verified?

Required materials and conditions: The PAF candidate's dosing/discontinuation schedule, blood-draw/testing times, washout and sequence.
Conditions for verification: Link administration duration, discontinuation/washout, blood draw and testing times to the same PAF-response conditions.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Durations from other AGE reports or platelet-recovery times are not newly substituted.
Why this condition is needed: Responses at different times are not combined into one effect.
Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

N06 · Are the PAF endpoint clue and exact aggregation measure verified?

Required materials and conditions: PAF assay specimens, agonist concentration, equipment, maximum-aggregation/threshold definition and unit/direction.
Conditions for verification: Verify the PAF description, concentration, maximum aggregation/threshold/curve, unit, direction and assay conditions.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: The highest-dose ADP threshold is not converted into a PAF measure.
Why this condition is needed: The same endpoint name does not establish an identical result when measures or stimulation conditions differ.
Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

N07 · Are the 1995 opposing description and PAF-specific numerical results and intervals verified?

Required materials and conditions: The 1995 PAF-specific result tables, models/tests, effects/CI and product identity.
Conditions for verification: Separately verify the report-level no-significant-in-vivo-oral-effect result and PAF-specific effects, tests, intervals and AGE formulation identity.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: No arbitrary P values, CI, effect of 0 or AGE-null verdict are created.
Why this condition is needed: The opposing description is retained while exact result attribution is limited.
Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

N08 · Is a direct AGE-versus-placebo comparison result for PAF verified?

Required materials and conditions: Placebo-comparison methods, results and arm-specific analysis tables for PAF with verified AGE formulation.
Conditions for verification: Verify the actual placebo comparison and result for matching AGE product, population, PAF measure and time.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Unverified information within the retained scope is not a conclusion that 0 studies exist worldwide.
Why this condition is needed: A gap in direct results must also be retained in the table.
Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

N09 · Are the PAF candidate's blinding, allocation and co-intervention procedures verified?

Required materials and conditions: The 1995 original methods, allocation/concealment, baseline tables, co-interventions/rescue treatment and blinding material.
Conditions for verification: Verify the candidate's double-blind placebo design alongside actual allocation, concealment, co-interventions, rescue treatment and assessment blinding.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: The double-blind label does not add randomization, a parallel design or absence of bias.
Why this condition is needed: A design label does not resolve allocation or measurement problems.
Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

N10 · Were the 34-person AGE results kept separate from direct PAF results?

Required materials and conditions: S01's full agonist plans, result tables, specimen/population links and whether PAF was included.
Conditions for verification: Retain partial collagen/epinephrine reductions and the weak highest-dose ADP threshold in their original report without transferring them to PAF.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Absence from the current summary does not establish non-reporting or non-measurement throughout the paper.
Why this condition is needed: Other favorable signals are not read as effects on the selected PAF response.
Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

N11 · Are PAF allocation, measurement and analysis n and missingness verified?

Required materials and conditions: PAF-specific arm flowcharts, analysis populations, completion/missingness n and handling rules.
Conditions for verification: Verify the PAF candidate's arm-specific allocation/completion/measurement/analysis n, missingness handling and direct AGE analysis population.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Exact n is not inferred from the small-sample label, and 34 and 595 are not added.
Why this condition is needed: Another report's total is not transferred as the selected-response denominator.
Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

N12 · Are between/within-arm contrasts, models, variance and CI for the PAF estimate verified?

Required materials and conditions: PAF-specific analysis plans, estimates, variance/CI and the basis for an important difference.
Conditions for verification: Verify the actual effect of interest, analysis method, adjustment, variance/CI and clinical-importance criteria for PAF.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Non-significance is not interpreted as equivalence, and no new effects, CI or percentage of conditions met are calculated.
Why this condition is needed: Broad original axes do not provide individual PAF analyses or intervals.
Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

N13 · Do prespecified PAF endpoints, times and analyses agree with published results?

Required materials and conditions: Original registration/protocols, PAF plans, multiplicity rules, result tables and change history.
Conditions for verification: Verify planned PAF concentrations/measures, doses, times, analyses and multiplicity handling against published reports.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Unobtained registration is not converted into confirmed non-registration or selective reporting.
Why this condition is needed: Material is needed to assess possible favorable selection among multiple agonists and doses.
Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

N14 · Are overall review results and the directly eligible PAF/AGE subset verified?

Required materials and conditions: Review included-trial tables, results by product/agonist/time/analysis and overlap tables.
Conditions for verification: Distinguish the broad review record of 12 RCTs, 595 people and 6 positive/rest-null trials from AGE/PAF-specific products, measures and trial results.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: The 6 positive reports are not read as 6 positive PAF trials, and heterogeneity is not recalculated as PAF conflict.
Why this condition is needed: Review averages or positive-report counts are not counted as direct replication.
Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

N15 · Is overlap between the same AGE trial and review-included trials verified?

Required materials and conditions: Review included-trial tables, registration/paper identifiers, recruitment sites/periods and product/endpoint links.
Conditions for verification: Retain S01's multiple doses/agonists as the same 34-person context and verify S02 identity and overlap between S03 included trials and reports.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: No 34+595 total or dose/agonist-specific independent-trial counts are automatically created.
Why this condition is needed: The same 34 people or the review's 595 people are not recounted as independent participants.
Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

N16 · Is independent replication under matching AGE/PAF conditions verified?

Required materials and conditions: Unique-trial results with verified formulation/PAF conditions and study-family links.
Conditions for verification: Verify unique direct replication results for matching formulation, population, PAF measure, comparison and time.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Current unverified status does not establish 0 studies or an AGE effect of 0.
Why this condition is needed: Broad original independence labels are not inherited by the individual selected response.
Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

N17 · Are each report's funding clues and product/author independence verified?

Required materials and conditions: Original reports' funding/COI, product provision, authors/institutions/patents and included-trial tables.
Conditions for verification: Retain unverified S01 product-support details, unverified S02 funding and S03 academic/mixed funding, and verify the PAF candidate's product/author/COI relationships.
Requirement and applicability: Supplementary; required for independence claims
Application exceptions: Product support alone does not automatically exclude results, and generic English funding wording is not treated as actual verification.
Why this condition is needed: Unverified funding is not converted into independent support or absence of bias.
Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

N18 · Are bleeding events, collection, denominators and timing under the same exposure verified?

Required materials and conditions: Exposure with matching formulation: AE definitions, collection/severity, event/person counts, exposure/follow-up, discontinuation and comparisons.
Conditions for verification: Distinguish aggregation assays from actual bleeding, severe and discontinuation event definitions, collection, exposed/event participants, comparisons and follow-up.
Requirement and applicability: Supplementary; required for harm claims
Application exceptions: Unverified bleeding is not written as 0 events or safety, and 34/595 are not reused as harm denominators.
Why this condition is needed: Statements that clinical events were not measured differ from personal bleeding safety.
Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

N19 · Are the original bleeding warning and direct co-medication/vulnerable-group data verified?

Required materials and conditions: Group-specific formulation, exposure, events, follow-up/alternative explanations and warning sources.
Conditions for verification: Distinguish original warnings for anticoagulants/antiplatelets, bleeding disorders and perioperative use from direct exposure/events, alternative causes and interaction material.
Requirement and applicability: Supplementary; required for the stated safety claim
Application exceptions: Retaining a warning is neither new harm-causality/incidence adjudication nor a dosing prescription.
Why this condition is needed: Experimental trial-population results are not extended to special-population safety.
Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

N20 · Does the PAF response answer thrombosis prevention or aspirin replacement?

Required materials and conditions: A separate event question's definition, comparator, follow-up, denominator and clinical results.
Conditions for verification: Separate the selected ex vivo response gap from clinical thrombosis/bleeding and treatment-replacement questions.
Requirement and applicability: Supplementary; required only for clinical extensions
Application exceptions: Not applicable does not mean no events, a PAF effect of 0 or safety certification.
Why this condition is needed: Experimental aggregation assays and clinical prevention are different questions.
Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

N21 · Are optimal dose, long-term persistence and special subgroups part of this question?

Required materials and conditions: If extension is requested: direct PAF dose comparisons, follow-up and prespecified subgroup/interaction material.
Conditions for verification: Distinguish direct PAF identity/result gaps from dose optimization, discontinuation/long-term and subgroup questions.
Requirement and applicability: Supplementary; required only for extension claims
Application exceptions: The highest-dose signal for another agonist does not establish the optimal PAF dose.
Why this condition is needed: A narrow gap question does not impose every extension study.
Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

N22 · Were local-summary reading and unread linked external materials distinguished?

Required materials and conditions: Subsequent material-specific access/acquisition/reading records, versions, original locations and physical material.
Conditions for verification: Distinguish reading all 3 evidence entries, 3 citations and Korean/English text from unattempted, unacquired and unread external PubMed/DOI/full-text material by material.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Unattempted external access is not called access failure, and report-level historical full-text access is not inherited by a constructed DOI gateway.
Why this condition is needed: Bibliographic existence is not promoted to full-text reading or acquisition of eligible results.
Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

N23 · Were the original review date, correction date and individual access dates distinguished?

Required materials and conditions: Historical material-specific access/version records and complete before/after correction versions.
Conditions for verification: Distinguish the original review-date field 2026-09-08, correction date 2026-09-14 and current review time; retain absent material-specific access-date/level fields as unrecorded.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Historical agonist-separation wording is not converted into current original-paper reading.
Why this condition is needed: A global review date is not an individual external access date.
Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

N24 · Are search/selection records available to verify the complete current PAF/AGE evidence?

Required materials and conditions: Historical queries/dates, selection/exclusion, unpublished/correction/retraction checks and product/agonist-specific candidate logs.
Conditions for verification: Verify queries, dates, selection/exclusion, unpublished/correction-check logs and the scope of complete current evidence for the PAF/AGE question. Separately display current retained-summary reading and the absence of new searching.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: 0 new searches are not reported as 0 PAF studies or a complete current review.
Why this condition is needed: An absence statement requires an actual reviewed scope.
Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

N25 · Were the original broad C46, axes and all results distinguished from a derived grade?

Required materials and conditions: The complete original summary, input identity, boundary/verdict/correction events and separate-grade policy.
Conditions for verification: Retain original 3066 C46/axes/Warning, values, empty separate-claim list, generic English wording and corrections; state that the separate PAF grade is unrecorded.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Unverified actual observations are not filled with the number 0 or no effect.
Why this condition is needed: The historical broad parent verdict does not become an individual efficacy status for the selected response.
Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. 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

Met: Limited verification of the retained identity, observation or scope required by this row. This is separate from clinical sufficiency or full-text certification.
Partly verified: Some facts needed by the question are known, while the stated analysis, population, formulation or denominator remains unverified.
Unverified: Direct information for this question is unverified in the retained scope. This does not mean an effect of 0, no studies, no harm or an unreviewed table.
Not applicable: A specific extension obligation lies outside the narrow question. This does not substitute for unread or unverified material.
Not applicable (alias): A grey-display alias of Not applicable.
Not read: The external material was not directly read in the current work. This is separate from reading the retained local summary.
Conflicting data: Actual disagreement between reports under the same conditions. Differences between other questions alone do not establish conflict.

Change history

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

The public view and materials were prepared from the existing 25 items. No new clinical search, verification-state change or scoring was performed.

The stored-material review date (2026-10-05) and original evidence review date (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 · Are the broad original claim and the PAF evidence-gap question distinguished?

Current findings: The original wording is reduced ex vivo platelet aggregation. This table asks about direct AGE-versus-placebo material and formulation identity for PAF-induced aggregation. The original verdict has an empty list of separate claims; this question is not an originally listed subclaim.
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 fixed boundary distinguishes the broad original wording from the derived question without declaring a new effect.
Reason for missing information: Question identity and scope were checked. This does not mean a direct AGE effect on PAF was verified.
Required materials and conditions: The original broad claim, derived boundary, target endpoint and change history.
Materials to obtain first: The original broad claim, derived boundary, target endpoint and change history.
Further research: If the boundary changes, compare inclusion/exclusion for the broad original claim and derived comparison together.
Remaining uncertainty: Question identity and scope were checked. This does not mean a direct AGE effect on PAF was verified.
Conditions for verification: Preserve the original verdict claim and separately fix the question of direct AGE-versus-placebo evidence and formulation identity for PAF-induced aggregation.
Why this condition is needed: The broad parent verdict is not automatically promoted to an agonist-specific effect.
Application exceptions: This question is neither a new clinical verdict nor an originally listed subclaim.
Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S01 S02 S03

N02 · Is the 1995 garlic preparation in the PAF material identical to the AGE product?

Current findings: A broad AGE-capsule identity and a 1995 garlic-preparation report are retained. The latter includes PAF, but identity with AGE in product, aging/extraction process and SAC specification remains 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: Direct product material verifying that the PAF candidate's formulation matches the selected AGE is absent.
Reason for missing information: AGE identity, extraction/aging process, SAC and added ingredients of the 1995 product are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: The 1995 original methods: product name, manufacture/extraction, SAC, ingredients/batch, and AGE product specifications.
Materials to obtain first: The 1995 original methods: product name, manufacture/extraction, SAC, ingredients/batch, and AGE product specifications.
Further research: Compare each report's product specifications to establish formulation identity before assessing PAF eligibility.
Remaining uncertainty: AGE identity, extraction/aging process, SAC and added ingredients of the 1995 product are unverified.
Conditions for verification: Directly verify the 1995 preparation's identity, standardization and product, and its identity with AGE capsules.
Why this condition is needed: The formulation-identity gap is central to directness.
Application exceptions: Garlic preparations, raw garlic, powder, oil, allicin, black garlic and isolated SAC are not assumed to be AGE.
Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S01 S02

N03 · Are the PAF candidate's route, actual dose and intake verified?

Current findings: The broad claim conditions record an oral AGE dose-ranging trial at 2.4, 4.8 and 7.2 g/day. These doses belong to the 34-person AGE report's context and cannot be transferred as doses, adherence or product amounts for the 1995 PAF candidate.
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 selected direct PAF candidate's route, dose/specification and intake information is unverified.
Reason for missing information: The PAF candidate's actual exposure, intake/adherence, dose reduction and discontinuation information is absent.
Required materials and conditions: The PAF candidate's administration route, product/active amount, frequency, medication records and adherence criteria.
Materials to obtain first: The PAF candidate's administration route, product/active amount, frequency, medication records and adherence criteria.
Further research: After fixing product identity, compare actual exposure with planned doses and analyses.
Remaining uncertainty: The PAF candidate's actual exposure, intake/adherence, dose reduction and discontinuation information is absent.
Conditions for verification: Verify the actual route, product amount, active specification and intake/adherence of the selected oral AGE and PAF candidate.
Why this condition is needed: Doses for other agonists are not copied as PAF trial doses.
Application exceptions: Known broad AGE doses alone do not make the PAF dose partly verified.
Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S01 S02

N04 · Are the PAF candidate's actual population, baseline status and eligibility verified?

Current findings: The 1995 candidate is retained as a small sample of healthy men. Age, eligibility/exclusions, baseline platelet function and medication exposure remain unverified; matching the direct AGE population also first requires formulation verification.
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: Some population categories of the PAF candidate are known, while actual eligibility, baseline status and AGE applicability remain unresolved.
Reason for missing information: The healthy-men label alone does not establish the direct AGE population, medication exclusions or representativeness.
Required materials and conditions: The 1995 population/eligibility criteria, baseline table, medication/disease exclusions and actual analysis population.
Materials to obtain first: The 1995 population/eligibility criteria, baseline table, medication/disease exclusions and actual analysis population.
Further research: Compare formulation and population conditions together to assess direct applicability to the selected question.
Remaining uncertainty: The healthy-men label alone does not establish the direct AGE population, medication exclusions or representativeness.
Conditions for verification: Verify the small-sample healthy-men clue alongside actual age, eligibility/exclusions, baseline platelet function and co-medication.
Why this condition is needed: A population label and direct eligibility are separate.
Application exceptions: This is not applied to antiplatelet co-users, thrombosis patients or all adults.
Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S02

N05 · Are the PAF candidate's intake duration and blood-draw/testing times verified?

Current findings: The broad claim conditions describe only short term with durations varying across trials. The PAF candidate's exact intake duration, blood-draw/testing time and discontinuation/washout remain unverified in retained summaries.
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 direct schedule establishing the PAF response's timing conditions is absent.
Reason for missing information: A nominal short-term description cannot establish a specific PAF duration, persistence or acute response.
Required materials and conditions: The PAF candidate's dosing/discontinuation schedule, blood-draw/testing times, washout and sequence.
Materials to obtain first: The PAF candidate's dosing/discontinuation schedule, blood-draw/testing times, washout and sequence.
Further research: Link temporal order and testing time to original methods/results, keeping different times separate.
Remaining uncertainty: A nominal short-term description cannot establish a specific PAF duration, persistence or acute response.
Conditions for verification: Link administration duration, discontinuation/washout, blood draw and testing times to the same PAF-response conditions.
Why this condition is needed: Responses at different times are not combined into one effect.
Application exceptions: Durations from other AGE reports or platelet-recovery times are not newly substituted.
Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S02

N06 · Are the PAF endpoint clue and exact aggregation measure verified?

Current findings: The 1995 evidence endpoint lists ADP, PAF and collagen aggregation. PAF concentration, assay method, maximum aggregation/threshold, unit and exact result value 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 PAF endpoint name is known, but the actual measurement conditions remain unresolved.
Reason for missing information: PAF measures, agonist concentration, collection/assessment procedures and result units are absent.
Required materials and conditions: PAF assay specimens, agonist concentration, equipment, maximum-aggregation/threshold definition and unit/direction.
Materials to obtain first: PAF assay specimens, agonist concentration, equipment, maximum-aggregation/threshold definition and unit/direction.
Further research: Compare methods and result tables, linking only matching PAF measures.
Remaining uncertainty: PAF measures, agonist concentration, collection/assessment procedures and result units are absent.
Conditions for verification: Verify the PAF description, concentration, maximum aggregation/threshold/curve, unit, direction and assay conditions.
Why this condition is needed: The same endpoint name does not establish an identical result when measures or stimulation conditions differ.
Application exceptions: The highest-dose ADP threshold is not converted into a PAF measure.
Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S02

N07 · Are the 1995 opposing description and PAF-specific numerical results and intervals verified?

Current findings: The 1995 result is no significant in vivo oral effect, and PAF appears among the endpoints. PAF-specific estimates, CI, tests, denominators and AGE identity remain unverified. Non-significance is not converted into an effect of 0 or equivalence.
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 opposing report context is retained, while direct PAF-specific effects and precision remain unresolved.
Reason for missing information: The report-level non-significance wording alone cannot establish a PAF-specific effect of 0 or AGE inefficacy.
Required materials and conditions: The 1995 PAF-specific result tables, models/tests, effects/CI and product identity.
Materials to obtain first: The 1995 PAF-specific result tables, models/tests, effects/CI and product identity.
Further research: Extract results by agonist and compare formulation matching and test direction.
Remaining uncertainty: The report-level non-significance wording alone cannot establish a PAF-specific effect of 0 or AGE inefficacy.
Conditions for verification: Separately verify the report-level no-significant-in-vivo-oral-effect result and PAF-specific effects, tests, intervals and AGE formulation identity.
Why this condition is needed: The opposing description is retained while exact result attribution is limited.
Application exceptions: No arbitrary P values, CI, effect of 0 or AGE-null verdict are created.
Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S02

N08 · Is a direct AGE-versus-placebo comparison result for PAF verified?

Current findings: A direct AGE-versus-placebo PAF result is unverified within the current 3 evidence entries/3 citations. The 1995 candidate has unverified product identity, and the 34-person AGE report concerns other agonists.
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: Material or gateway existence differs from an eligible direct PAF result, which is currently unverified.
Reason for missing information: The direct AGE placebo comparison, measure, population, time, denominator and effect for PAF remain unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Placebo-comparison methods, results and arm-specific analysis tables for PAF with verified AGE formulation.
Materials to obtain first: Placebo-comparison methods, results and arm-specific analysis tables for PAF with verified AGE formulation.
Further research: Fix product identity and the PAF measure before assessing direct comparison material against eligibility criteria.
Remaining uncertainty: The direct AGE placebo comparison, measure, population, time, denominator and effect for PAF remain unverified.
Conditions for verification: Verify the actual placebo comparison and result for matching AGE product, population, PAF measure and time.
Why this condition is needed: A gap in direct results must also be retained in the table.
Application exceptions: Unverified information within the retained scope is not a conclusion that 0 studies exist worldwide.
Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S01 S02 S03

N09 · Are the PAF candidate's blinding, allocation and co-intervention procedures verified?

Current findings: The 1995 candidate is retained as a double-blind placebo trial. Details of randomization status, allocation/concealment, baseline balance, co-interventions/rescue treatment and measurement blinding 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: Blinding and placebo labels are known, but actual design/conduct and intervention-attribution material remain unresolved.
Reason for missing information: The candidate's allocation, concealment, co-intervention/rescue treatment and assessment procedures remain unverified.
Required materials and conditions: The 1995 original methods, allocation/concealment, baseline tables, co-interventions/rescue treatment and blinding material.
Materials to obtain first: The 1995 original methods, allocation/concealment, baseline tables, co-interventions/rescue treatment and blinding material.
Further research: Compare methods, baseline and co-intervention records for arm-specific differences that could explain PAF results.
Remaining uncertainty: The candidate's allocation, concealment, co-intervention/rescue treatment and assessment procedures remain unverified.
Conditions for verification: Verify the candidate's double-blind placebo design alongside actual allocation, concealment, co-interventions, rescue treatment and assessment blinding.
Why this condition is needed: A design label does not resolve allocation or measurement problems.
Application exceptions: The double-blind label does not add randomization, a parallel design or absence of bias.
Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S02

N10 · Were the 34-person AGE results kept separate from direct PAF results?

Current findings: S01 is a 34-person AGE dose-ranging trial. Results include partial collagen/epinephrine reductions and a weak highest-dose ADP threshold signal; a current PAF result is not specified.
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: Known S01 results were retained with their agonists rather than promoted to PAF results.
Reason for missing information: The original boundary of other endpoint results was checked. Whether S01 actually measured PAF and the reason for any omission remain unverified because the original paper is unread.
Required materials and conditions: S01's full agonist plans, result tables, specimen/population links and whether PAF was included.
Materials to obtain first: S01's full agonist plans, result tables, specimen/population links and whether PAF was included.
Further research: Compare planned agonists and result tables to distinguish PAF measurement, omission and non-planning.
Remaining uncertainty: The original boundary of other endpoint results was checked. Whether S01 actually measured PAF and the reason for any omission remain unverified because the original paper is unread.
Conditions for verification: Retain partial collagen/epinephrine reductions and the weak highest-dose ADP threshold in their original report without transferring them to PAF.
Why this condition is needed: Other favorable signals are not read as effects on the selected PAF response.
Application exceptions: Absence from the current summary does not establish non-reporting or non-measurement throughout the paper.
Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S01

N11 · Are PAF allocation, measurement and analysis n and missingness verified?

Current findings: The 1995 report retains only a small sample of healthy men. Arm-specific PAF n, losses, missingness and analysis population are unverified. The 34 people in another AGE report are not the PAF analysis n.
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 exact selected-response denominators and missingness handling, the direct estimate's population cannot be verified.
Reason for missing information: PAF allocation, measurement, analysis and completion denominators, loss reasons and handling material are absent.
Required materials and conditions: PAF-specific arm flowcharts, analysis populations, completion/missingness n and handling rules.
Materials to obtain first: PAF-specific arm flowcharts, analysis populations, completion/missingness n and handling rules.
Further research: Link paper flow and assay-specific population tables to assess cross-use of denominators and selective losses.
Remaining uncertainty: PAF allocation, measurement, analysis and completion denominators, loss reasons and handling material are absent.
Conditions for verification: Verify the PAF candidate's arm-specific allocation/completion/measurement/analysis n, missingness handling and direct AGE analysis population.
Why this condition is needed: Another report's total is not transferred as the selected-response denominator.
Application exceptions: Exact n is not inferred from the small-sample label, and 34 and 595 are not added.
Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S01 S02

N12 · Are between/within-arm contrasts, models, variance and CI for the PAF estimate verified?

Current findings: PAF-specific between/within-arm contrasts, effect values, SD/SE, CI, adjustment and important-difference criteria remain unverified. Report-level non-significance or broad EX/CX axes do not substitute for them.
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: Direct data for PAF estimates and variance are absent.
Reason for missing information: Without PAF effect definitions, models, variance, intervals and important-difference material, sufficiency is not assessed.
Required materials and conditions: PAF-specific analysis plans, estimates, variance/CI and the basis for an important difference.
Materials to obtain first: PAF-specific analysis plans, estimates, variance/CI and the basis for an important difference.
Further research: Compare the actual estimand and intervals with verified important-difference criteria without new calculations.
Remaining uncertainty: Without PAF effect definitions, models, variance, intervals and important-difference material, sufficiency is not assessed.
Conditions for verification: Verify the actual effect of interest, analysis method, adjustment, variance/CI and clinical-importance criteria for PAF.
Why this condition is needed: Broad original axes do not provide individual PAF analyses or intervals.
Application exceptions: Non-significance is not interpreted as equivalence, and no new effects, CI or percentage of conditions met are calculated.
Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S02

N13 · Do prespecified PAF endpoints, times and analyses agree with published results?

Current findings: All 3 original evidence registration fields say not verified. Agreement or changes between prespecified PAF endpoints, analysis/multiplicity plans and actual results remain 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: Direct registration/planning material is absent, so PAF prespecification and selective reporting cannot be established.
Reason for missing information: A comparison of PAF plans, registration, analysis plans and publications is absent.
Required materials and conditions: Original registration/protocols, PAF plans, multiplicity rules, result tables and change history.
Materials to obtain first: Original registration/protocols, PAF plans, multiplicity rules, result tables and change history.
Further research: Compare initial plans and agonist-specific published results, distinguishing planning, omission and changes.
Remaining uncertainty: A comparison of PAF plans, registration, analysis plans and publications is absent.
Conditions for verification: Verify planned PAF concentrations/measures, doses, times, analyses and multiplicity handling against published reports.
Why this condition is needed: Material is needed to assess possible favorable selection among multiple agonists and doses.
Application exceptions: Unobtained registration is not converted into confirmed non-registration or selective reporting.
Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S01 S02 S03

N14 · Are overall review results and the directly eligible PAF/AGE subset verified?

Current findings: The 2022 review reports 12 RCTs, 595 people, 6 positive and the rest null, with heterogeneity preventing a conclusion. PAF-specific eligible AGE trials, results and denominators are unverified 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 review's overall direction and limitations are known, while its eligible selected PAF subset remains unresolved.
Reason for missing information: Overall review and positive-result counts are not PAF AGE trial counts, participant counts or effects.
Required materials and conditions: Review included-trial tables, results by product/agonist/time/analysis and overlap tables.
Materials to obtain first: Review included-trial tables, results by product/agonist/time/analysis and overlap tables.
Further research: Separate included trials by formulation and agonist, comparing both positive and no-difference results.
Remaining uncertainty: Overall review and positive-result counts are not PAF AGE trial counts, participant counts or effects.
Conditions for verification: Distinguish the broad review record of 12 RCTs, 595 people and 6 positive/rest-null trials from AGE/PAF-specific products, measures and trial results.
Why this condition is needed: Review averages or positive-report counts are not counted as direct replication.
Application exceptions: The 6 positive reports are not read as 6 positive PAF trials, and heterogeneity is not recalculated as PAF conflict.
Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S03

N15 · Is overlap between the same AGE trial and review-included trials verified?

Current findings: S01 contains multiple agonist results from a 34-person dose trial. S02 is another preparation's 1995 report; S03 is a review of 12 RCTs. Review inclusion, overlap with S01/S02 and unique direct PAF study families 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: Multiple results from one trial and the review type are known, while complete study-family/overlap links remain unresolved.
Reason for missing information: Included-trial identities, cohorts, preparations, PAF measures and unique selected-response replication counts remain unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Review included-trial tables, registration/paper identifiers, recruitment sites/periods and product/endpoint links.
Materials to obtain first: Review included-trial tables, registration/paper identifiers, recruitment sites/periods and product/endpoint links.
Further research: Build report-trial-population-endpoint links to connect multiple reports and review recitations to the same families.
Remaining uncertainty: Included-trial identities, cohorts, preparations, PAF measures and unique selected-response replication counts remain unverified.
Conditions for verification: Retain S01's multiple doses/agonists as the same 34-person context and verify S02 identity and overlap between S03 included trials and reports.
Why this condition is needed: The same 34 people or the review's 595 people are not recounted as independent participants.
Application exceptions: No 34+595 total or dose/agonist-specific independent-trial counts are automatically created.
Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S01 S02 S03

N16 · Is independent replication under matching AGE/PAF conditions verified?

Current findings: The direct AGE/PAF conditions themselves and unique independent replications are unverified in current summaries. The original independent-opposing-result label is historical wording for the broad 1995 report.
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: Other-preparation candidates or the overall review cannot establish direct replication of the selected response.
Reason for missing information: Unique direct AGE PAF trials and the distribution of replication results remain unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Unique-trial results with verified formulation/PAF conditions and study-family links.
Materials to obtain first: Unique-trial results with verified formulation/PAF conditions and study-family links.
Further research: Fix direct eligibility before comparing results and condition differences across unique study families.
Remaining uncertainty: Unique direct AGE PAF trials and the distribution of replication results remain unverified.
Conditions for verification: Verify unique direct replication results for matching formulation, population, PAF measure, comparison and time.
Why this condition is needed: Broad original independence labels are not inherited by the individual selected response.
Application exceptions: Current unverified status does not establish 0 studies or an AGE effect of 0.
Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S01 S02 S03

N17 · Are each report's funding clues and product/author independence verified?

Current findings: S01 product-support details and S02 funding are unverified. S03 is academic research with mixed original-trial funding. Product provision, author employment/patents, COI and AGE product relationships for the PAF candidate 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: Some report-specific funding records exist, while selected-response independence details remain unresolved.
Reason for missing information: Detailed product, author/institution, patent, COI and review-included-trial funding links are absent.
Required materials and conditions: Original reports' funding/COI, product provision, authors/institutions/patents and included-trial tables.
Materials to obtain first: Original reports' funding/COI, product provision, authors/institutions/patents and included-trial tables.
Further research: Compare funding and product/author relationships report by report, retaining unverified independence.
Remaining uncertainty: Detailed product, author/institution, patent, COI and review-included-trial funding links are absent.
Conditions for verification: Retain unverified S01 product-support details, unverified S02 funding and S03 academic/mixed funding, and verify the PAF candidate's product/author/COI relationships.
Why this condition is needed: Unverified funding is not converted into independent support or absence of bias.
Application exceptions: Product support alone does not automatically exclude results, and generic English funding wording is not treated as actual verification.
Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S01 S02 S03

N18 · Are bleeding events, collection, denominators and timing under the same exposure verified?

Current findings: The original text says clinical thrombosis or bleeding was not measured in these trials. Bleeding events, person counts, collection, discontinuation and comparison/follow-up denominators for the PAF candidate remain 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: Platelet-response material does not provide actual bleeding-event counts.
Reason for missing information: Harm collection, event/person counts, denominators, duration and discontinuation for matching PAF/AGE exposure are absent.
Required materials and conditions: Exposure with matching formulation: AE definitions, collection/severity, event/person counts, exposure/follow-up, discontinuation and comparisons.
Materials to obtain first: Exposure with matching formulation: AE definitions, collection/severity, event/person counts, exposure/follow-up, discontinuation and comparisons.
Further research: Separate aggregation results from safety populations/follow-up and compare events, timing and denominators.
Remaining uncertainty: Harm collection, event/person counts, denominators, duration and discontinuation for matching PAF/AGE exposure are absent.
Conditions for verification: Distinguish aggregation assays from actual bleeding, severe and discontinuation event definitions, collection, exposed/event participants, comparisons and follow-up.
Why this condition is needed: Statements that clinical events were not measured differ from personal bleeding safety.
Application exceptions: Unverified bleeding is not written as 0 events or safety, and 34/595 are not reused as harm denominators.
Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S01 S02

N19 · Are the original bleeding warning and direct co-medication/vulnerable-group data verified?

Current findings: The original warning prohibits unsupervised use with anticoagulants/antiplatelets, bleeding disorders and around surgery. Direct AGE/PAF exposure, events, follow-up and interaction magnitude in these groups 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 warning names the groups, but direct group-specific information remains unresolved.
Reason for missing information: Group-specific harms, alternative causes/adjustment and long-term/rare-event material remain unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Group-specific formulation, exposure, events, follow-up/alternative explanations and warning sources.
Materials to obtain first: Group-specific formulation, exposure, events, follow-up/alternative explanations and warning sources.
Further research: Compare original warning evidence and group-specific safety material separately without certifying personal safety.
Remaining uncertainty: Group-specific harms, alternative causes/adjustment and long-term/rare-event material remain unverified.
Conditions for verification: Distinguish original warnings for anticoagulants/antiplatelets, bleeding disorders and perioperative use from direct exposure/events, alternative causes and interaction material.
Why this condition is needed: Experimental trial-population results are not extended to special-population safety.
Application exceptions: Retaining a warning is neither new harm-causality/incidence adjudication nor a dosing prescription.
Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S01 S02 S03

N20 · Does the PAF response answer thrombosis prevention or aspirin replacement?

Current findings: Direct material for the PAF response itself is unverified. No thrombosis-prevention, thrombolysis, aspirin-replacement or bleeding-safety claim is made.
Verification status: Not applicable
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: Clinical events/replacement are not direct results of this aggregation-gap question, so separate clinical confirmation is not imposed as a current required condition.
Reason for missing information: Direct clinical-event effects were not checked in this table. Ex vivo gaps are not added to event-effect gaps.
Required materials and conditions: A separate event question's definition, comparator, follow-up, denominator and clinical results.
Materials to obtain first: A separate event question's definition, comparator, follow-up, denominator and clinical results.
Further research: If an event question is requested, review separate clinical endpoints and long-term/event-follow-up studies.
Remaining uncertainty: Direct clinical-event effects were not checked in this table. Ex vivo gaps are not added to event-effect gaps.
Conditions for verification: Separate the selected ex vivo response gap from clinical thrombosis/bleeding and treatment-replacement questions.
Why this condition is needed: Experimental aggregation assays and clinical prevention are different questions.
Application exceptions: Not applicable does not mean no events, a PAF effect of 0 or safety certification.
Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S01 S02 S03

N21 · Are optimal dose, long-term persistence and special subgroups part of this question?

Current findings: This question checks direct AGE PAF evidence and formulation identity. Optimal dose, persistence after discontinuation and special-subgroup effects are not newly claimed.
Verification status: Not applicable
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: These extension obligations lie outside the current question; the broad dose trial is not converted into PAF dose optimization.
Reason for missing information: Original identity/result gaps remain, but separate extensions are not automatically made required.
Required materials and conditions: If extension is requested: direct PAF dose comparisons, follow-up and prespecified subgroup/interaction material.
Materials to obtain first: If extension is requested: direct PAF dose comparisons, follow-up and prespecified subgroup/interaction material.
Further research: After direct PAF conditions are verified, assess eligible designs/results for each separate extension question.
Remaining uncertainty: Original identity/result gaps remain, but separate extensions are not automatically made required.
Conditions for verification: Distinguish direct PAF identity/result gaps from dose optimization, discontinuation/long-term and subgroup questions.
Why this condition is needed: A narrow gap question does not impose every extension study.
Application exceptions: The highest-dose signal for another agonist does not establish the optimal PAF dose.
Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S01 S02

N22 · Were local-summary reading and unread linked external materials distinguished?

Current findings: The complete retained summary, 3 evidence entries and 3 citations were read. External PubMed/DOI gateways and original papers remain unattempted, unacquired and unread; no direct PAF result was newly acquired.
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: Actual local reading was separated from unread external material and linked to exact summary locations and identity checks.
Reason for missing information: The current summary-reading scope was checked. External responses, actual document forms, abstracts/full texts and licenses remain unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Subsequent material-specific access/acquisition/reading records, versions, original locations and physical material.
Materials to obtain first: Subsequent material-specific access/acquisition/reading records, versions, original locations and physical material.
Further research: In authorized subsequent review, record external acquisition/reading as separate events and compare with retained summaries.
Remaining uncertainty: The current summary-reading scope was checked. External responses, actual document forms, abstracts/full texts and licenses remain unverified.
Conditions for verification: Distinguish reading all 3 evidence entries, 3 citations and Korean/English text from unattempted, unacquired and unread external PubMed/DOI/full-text material by material.
Why this condition is needed: Bibliographic existence is not promoted to full-text reading or acquisition of eligible results.
Application exceptions: Unattempted external access is not called access failure, and report-level historical full-text access is not inherited by a constructed DOI gateway.
Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S01 S02 S03

N23 · Were the original review date, correction date and individual access dates distinguished?

Current findings: The original review date 2026-09-08 and generic-English-wording correction date 2026-09-14 are retained. Material-specific access-date, level and location fields are absent and unrecorded; current local reading has its own actual timestamp.
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: Event-specific dates and absent fields were retained without backdating historical/current reading.
Reason for missing information: Historical material-specific access dates and full-text scope remain unverified. Only separation of the dates was checked.
Required materials and conditions: Historical material-specific access/version records and complete before/after correction versions.
Materials to obtain first: Historical material-specific access/version records and complete before/after correction versions.
Further research: Link and compare original review, correction and actual access events separately.
Remaining uncertainty: Historical material-specific access dates and full-text scope remain unverified. Only separation of the dates was checked.
Conditions for verification: Distinguish the original review-date field 2026-09-08, correction date 2026-09-14 and current review time; retain absent material-specific access-date/level fields as unrecorded.
Why this condition is needed: A global review date is not an individual external access date.
Application exceptions: Historical agonist-separation wording is not converted into current original-paper reading.
Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S01 S02 S03

N24 · Are search/selection records available to verify the complete current PAF/AGE evidence?

Current findings: Unverified direct PAF results are limited to the current 3 evidence entries/3 citations in retained summaries. The original research-description separation of the 34-person trial, review and opposing trial is historical wording; no new exhaustive search, registration/unpublished or retraction check was performed.
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: Search logs and material establishing completeness beyond the current scope are absent.
Reason for missing information: Checking PAF/AGE literature, unpublished reports and corrections/retractions beyond current material was not performed. Study absence is not established.
Required materials and conditions: Historical queries/dates, selection/exclusion, unpublished/correction/retraction checks and product/agonist-specific candidate logs.
Materials to obtain first: Historical queries/dates, selection/exclusion, unpublished/correction/retraction checks and product/agonist-specific candidate logs.
Further research: In an authorized separate update, fix the product/PAF question, reproduce the search scope and compare potentially omitted candidates.
Remaining uncertainty: Checking PAF/AGE literature, unpublished reports and corrections/retractions beyond current material was not performed. Study absence is not established.
Conditions for verification: Verify queries, dates, selection/exclusion, unpublished/correction-check logs and the scope of complete current evidence for the PAF/AGE question. Separately display current retained-summary reading and the absence of new searching.
Why this condition is needed: An absence statement requires an actual reviewed scope.
Application exceptions: 0 new searches are not reported as 0 PAF studies or a complete current review.
Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S01 S02 S03

N25 · Were the original broad C46, axes and all results distinguished from a derived grade?

Current findings: Original C46, B/S/R0/I1/EX/B2/CX, Warning and all original results are retained as historical records of the broad parent verdict. The individual PAF grade is unrecorded. Generic English sample-size/result wording does not create selected-response values or successful access.
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: Complete original typed values and derived identity were retained without creating a separate effect or grade.
Reason for missing information: Preservation of the broad parent verdict was checked. This table does not newly establish PAF efficacy, clinical sufficiency or method certification.
Required materials and conditions: The complete original summary, input identity, boundary/verdict/correction events and separate-grade policy.
Materials to obtain first: The complete original summary, input identity, boundary/verdict/correction events and separate-grade policy.
Further research: Compare complete original text, preserved case values and change events to check that no new derived verdict was created.
Remaining uncertainty: Preservation of the broad parent verdict was checked. This table does not newly establish PAF efficacy, clinical sufficiency or method certification.
Conditions for verification: Retain original 3066 C46/axes/Warning, values, empty separate-claim list, generic English wording and corrections; state that the separate PAF grade is unrecorded.
Why this condition is needed: The historical broad parent verdict does not become an individual efficacy status for the selected response.
Application exceptions: Unverified actual observations are not filled with the number 0 or no effect.
Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.

Related sources S01 S02 S03