Ordinary thiamine (vitamin B1) × Improvement of cognition in mild cognitive impairment

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	Verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N01 · Independent claimAre this table’s question about ordinary B1 alone and cognitive change in MCI, and its exclusions, clear?Required	The original claim concerns the comparative effect of single-ingredient oral ordinary thiamine on validated cognitive-test change in adults with MCI. The subclaim list is an actual empty array; one independent question was retained without inventing a specific scale, dose or duration.	The selected question and exclusions are explicit in the preserved source. This verification does not establish a direct clinical effect.	A boundary record linking the current claim’s wording, question identity, population, endpoint and comparison.	Before searching for eligible materials or designing a study later, specify this PICO and separate other molecular forms and diagnostic groups into different questions.
2	Unverified	Full text not readStored summary read	N02 · MCI populationCan MCI diagnosis, selection and baseline cognition be verified for an actual comparative result on ordinary B1?Required	The question concerns adults with MCI and excludes established Alzheimer dementia and confirmed B1-deficiency encephalopathy. The preserved summaries do not establish an isolated MCI result for ordinary B1; S26 involved established Alzheimer dementia. S26	The question’s population is fixed, but actual diagnosis, selection and baseline characteristics for an eligible MCI result have not been verified.	Eligibility criteria, diagnostic procedures, baseline characteristics and isolated MCI results from an eligible MCI trial.	Report population flow and results together in a comparative study that clearly selects clinical MCI and records baseline cognition and deficiency status.
3	Verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N03 · Distinguishing molecular formsWas benfotiamine distinguished from direct MCI evidence for ordinary thiamine?Required	S09 used benfotiamine in its cognitive trial. The preserved summary classified it as a molecular form different from ordinary thiamine and did not adopt it as a direct result for the current ordinary-B1–MCI question. S09	The preserved source explicitly states the intervention identity and exclusion reason, confirming the boundary for attributing direct evidence.	Current source locations supporting S09’s intervention identity and its distinction from ordinary B1.	A future comparison of ordinary B1 and benfotiamine would need separately specified molecular interventions and direct comparative results in the same population.
4	Unverified	Full text not readStored summary read	N04 · Formulation and routeCan the actual ordinary-B1 salt, formulation and route in an eligible MCI result be verified?Required	The question concerns single-ingredient oral ordinary thiamine. Molecular form, route and chemical-form values for an actual eligible result are null, and the linked-source list is empty; the exact salt and formulation are unverified.	Once the question’s identity is distinguished from actual observations, there are no linked materials establishing an actual eligible preparation or route.	Treatment composition, salt/formulation, product specifications, actual administration route and the original report for a comparative ordinary-thiamine MCI study.	Specify the single ordinary-B1 product and oral administration procedure; distinguish molecular-form and route effects using a comparator with the same concomitant ingredients.
5	Unverified	Full text not readStored summary read	N05 · Dose and adherenceCan the actual ordinary-B1 dose and adherence in MCI be verified?Required	The dose in an eligible MCI trial is unverified. Actual-dose and supplement-dose records have null values; doses and tolerability from other molecular forms or dementia trials are not presented as equivalent.	Directly eligible doses and actual use or adherence records could not be verified from the preserved inputs.	Dose, frequency, actual exposure, adherence and changes or discontinuations in an eligible MCI trial.	Collect prescribed and actual doses together and prespecify how adherence and discontinuation will be handled in the analysis. Do not invent an optimal dose or participant count.
6	Unverified	Full text not readStored summary read	N06 · Duration and timingCan actual MCI treatment duration and cognitive-assessment timing be verified?Required	Duration in an eligible MCI trial is unverified. The duration value is null and the linked-source list is empty; actual dose, duration and safety denominators for the current question are also recorded as unverified.	No materials were identified linking administration and measurement periods for a directly eligible result.	Treatment, discontinuation and cognitive-assessment schedules and outcome-specific timepoints from an eligible MCI trial.	Plan cognitive-assessment schedules separately from treatment-exposure duration, and report outcomes and attrition at the relevant timepoints.
7	Unverified	Full text not readStored summary read	N07 · Baseline B1 statusCan baseline B1 status and the method for diagnosing deficiency in the MCI population be verified?Required	Detailed baseline vitamin status and deficiency definitions are unverified and the value is null. Although the question excludes confirmed B1-deficiency encephalopathy, no verified value establishes that an actual eligible MCI population was nondeficient.	An explicit exclusion boundary does not verify actual baseline B1 status or its assessment method in an eligible population.	Baseline B1-status tables, testing/deficiency definitions, exclusion of deficiency encephalopathy and relevant subgroup results for an eligible MCI population.	Measure baseline nutritional status and prespecify hypotheses about effect modification by deficiency, reporting these separately from the main effect.
8	Unverified	Full text not readStored summary read	N08 · Diet and supplementsCan total dietary intake and other supplement exposure in each group be verified?Required	Total dietary intake, all supplement exposure and group-specific details of all concomitant vitamins in an eligible comparison are unverified. Both values are null and the linked-source lists are empty.	No actual materials establish the distribution or changes in background exposure for a directly eligible comparison.	Dietary B1, supplement composition, intake, exposure changes and their analytical handling by group.	Record diet and supplement use in both groups using the same methods; explicitly address differences and changes in background exposure in the analysis.
9	Unverified	Full text not readStored summary read	N09 · Actual comparatorCan an actual comparator differing only in ordinary B1 be verified for an eligible MCI result?Required	The question specifies comparison with placebo, no addition or the same usual care. Eligible between-group MCI results and the actual comparison are unverified; the record relating the study’s primary endpoint to this table’s endpoint has a null value.	The question defines a comparator, but actual group treatments and usual care for an eligible result could not be verified.	Treatment/control composition, shared usual care, background treatment by group and actual results for an eligible MCI comparison.	Construct a comparison differing only in the addition of ordinary B1; record usual care and treatment changes in both groups to estimate the between-group effect.
10	Unverified	Full text not readStored summary read	N10 · Concomitant and rescue treatmentCan concomitant medicines, rescue treatment and treatment changes that may affect cognition be verified by group?Required	Group-specific details of concomitant vitamins in an eligible comparison are unverified. No separate comprehensive search of all drug interactions was performed, and the current inputs lack materials establishing actual concomitant medicines, rescue treatment or treatment changes.	Concomitant-treatment and change information for a direct MCI comparison has not been verified, preventing an assessment of attribution to ordinary B1 using actual data.	Concomitant medicines and vitamins, rescue treatment, adherence/treatment changes and their analytical handling for an eligible MCI result.	Collect concomitant and rescue treatments in both groups and prespecify how assignment effects and actual-use effects will be distinguished.
11	Verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N11 · Patient-function endpointWas the cognitive-function question distinguished from blood vitamers and mechanistic markers?Required	The preserved summary distinguished the patient-function question of validated cognitive-test change from blood vitamers. The biochemical/clinical distinction record has a null value but a verified information state; advertising and mechanistic statements were not adopted as direct clinical evidence.	The endpoint’s meaning and the boundary against substituting mechanisms or advertising are explicit in the current source. Actual effect values have not been verified.	Current source and nutritional-extraction records showing the distinction between the question’s endpoint and biochemical markers.	Even if future work collects mechanistic and biochemical markers, report cognitive-test results as a separate endpoint and analyze relationships between markers separately.
12	Unverified	Full text not readStored summary read	N12 · Scale and measurementCan the cognitive scale, direction and measurement procedures for an eligible MCI result be verified?Required	The question of validated cognitive-test change is fixed, but the specific scale in an eligible MCI trial is unverified. The value linking actual endpoint results is also null, so scale direction, measurement procedures and blinding could not be verified.	No results or methods materials establish a directly eligible cognitive scale and assessment conditions.	Cognitive-scale specifications, assessment procedures, assessors/blinding and timepoint-specific results in a comparative MCI study.	Specify a validated scale suitable for MCI and report results using consistent assessment schedules and procedures while addressing repeat-testing effects.
13	Unverified	Full text not readStored summary read	N13 · Registration and primary endpointCan registration and the planned primary endpoint of an eligible MCI trial be compared with the actual report?Required	Independent comparison of registration and the primary endpoint is unverified. The registered-primary-endpoint record and study/table-endpoint relationship have null values; clinical-trial registration numbers for both adjacent reports are also null. S09 S26	No materials were identified to compare registration and plans with cognitive results for a directly eligible trial. A null clinical-trial registration number is not evidence of nonregistration.	Registration, protocol, analysis plan and original report of the relevant cognitive result for an eligible MCI trial.	Specify cognitive endpoints, primary analyses and timepoints before actual data collection; link registration/plans to all results and report reasons for changes.
14	Unverified	Full text not readStored summary read	N14 · Design and allocationCan the actual design, allocation and concealment of an eligible ordinary-B1–MCI comparison be verified?Required	No directly eligible human result has been verified. Design records for the two adjacent studies are strings summarizing exclusion reasons, not actual MCI-trial allocation methods. The original bias axis also states that unknown methods must not be invented and labeled as defects. S09 S26	No methods materials establish actual design, allocation, concealment or baseline balance for a result on ordinary B1 alone in MCI.	Methods materials on design, randomization/concealment, baseline characteristics by group and blinding for a directly eligible study.	Design a controlled study suited to the cognitive effect of interest and report allocation, concealment, baseline characteristics and measurement blinding. Do not assign a design from currently unverified materials.
15	Unverified	Full text not readStored summary read	N15 · Denominators and missing dataCan actual analysis denominators, attrition and missing data for MCI cognitive results be verified?Required	The actual analysis denominator for the relevant primary endpoint is unverified and its value is null. Both n fields are statements requiring only verified values from historical numerical records and prohibiting substitution of allocated participant counts. That separate file was not opened in this work, and the existing arithmetic-record list is empty. S09 S26	The current inputs do not establish actual analysis counts, flow or missing-data handling for a direct cognitive result. References to separate records were not used as numerical denominators.	Participant flow, numbers assessed/analyzed at each cognitive timepoint, dropout reasons and missing-data handling in direct MCI research.	Disclose flow by group and analysis denominators by outcome; report reasons for missingness, handling and result sensitivity. Do not invent a universal minimum n.
16	Unverified	Full text not readStored summary read	N16 · Effect of interest and analysisCan the definition and analysis of an actual between-group MCI effect be verified?Required	Directly eligible MCI results and their analysis are unverified. The original effect-size review records only state that eligible observations were not verified and that required adjusted/crossover effects of interest were not replaced with unadjusted values.	Actual between-group MCI estimates, analysis populations and models could not be verified. Calculation-attempt records were not used as actual results.	Effect-of-interest definition, analysis population, model, group results and between-group estimates for an eligible MCI comparison.	Specify the effect of interest and primary analysis; report between-group differences at the same timepoint separately from within-group improvement. Include crossover/cluster handling required by the actual design.
17	Unverified	Full text not readStored summary read	N17 · Effect, interval and importanceCan direct cognitive-change effects, variability, CIs and an important difference be verified?Required	The original record explicitly states that the effect estimate and an eligible effect interval for the exact claim could not be verified. Effects were not approximated by converting P statistics, and a specific MCI scale is also unverified.	Materials establishing direct cognitive effects, variability/CIs and importance criteria are unavailable, preventing interpretation of magnitude, precision and importance.	Scale-specific between-group effects, variability types, denominators, CIs and evidence for clinical-importance criteria for an eligible MCI result.	Report the main cognitive effect and CI and specify evidence for an important difference, separating uncertainty from clinical meaning. Do not determine sufficiency from significance or study count alone.
18	Verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N18 · Adjacent S09 resultWas S09’s cognitive-trial summary separated from a direct effect of ordinary B1 in MCI?Required	S09 is preserved as Gibson and colleagues’ 2020 cognitive trial of benfotiamine in early Alzheimer disease. The current summary records the molecular-form difference and does not adopt it as a direct ordinary-B1–MCI result. S09	The adjacent report’s identity, endpoint, exclusion reason and nontransfer to direct evidence were verified within the source’s scope.	Preserved bibliography, intervention, population/endpoint, exclusion role and result-summary locations for S09.	If ordinary B1 in MCI is newly studied, link benfotiamine/dementia findings only as hypothesis background and perform a separate direct comparison with matching intervention and population.
19	Verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N19 · Contrary S26 resultWas the negative ordinary-thiamine dementia result kept from becoming a conclusion of no effect in MCI?Required	S26 is a cognitive trial of ordinary thiamine in Alzheimer dementia. The original body text mentions its negative result; because it is not an isolated MCI result, it was not transferred to MCI as no effect or repeated refutation. S26	The unfavorable adjacent finding, population difference and reason for nontransfer were preserved together. This verification neither establishes an MCI effect nor revalidates S26’s numerical results.	S26 population/endpoint, ordinary-B1 identity, preserved results and original body-text locations addressing the negative result.	Obtain results by directly comparing ordinary B1 in MCI; interpret differences from dementia evidence separately by population and disease stage.
20	Verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N20 · Bibliographic identity and correctionsWere the benfotiamine paper’s identifier correction and both reports’ bibliographic links preserved accurately?Required	The original correction identifies S09 as PMID 33074237 and DOI 10.3233/JAD-200896 and records that a potentially mislinked PMID was not adopted. Both reports’ bibliographic/publisher URLs were preserved unchanged; no external recheck was performed in this work. S09 S26	The current manuscript’s identifier correction and actual bibliographic links were checked. This does not mean the original external paper’s identity was independently verified in this work.	Exact original wording of current citation/evidence records and the PMID/DOI linkage correction.	When obtaining materials later, compare PMID, DOI, authors/year and intervention identity; preserve before/after identifiers and the grounds for any correction.
21	Verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N21 · Reports and trial familiesWere the two adjacent reports kept from being counted as independent replications of direct MCI trials?Required	The two adjacent reports are distinguished as Benfotiamine-earlyAD-2020 and Nolan-AD-1991 and excluded for intervention and population differences, respectively. The original record likewise did not count them as replication/refutation of the exact MCI claim. 2 is the cited-report count; unique direct-trial and participant counts are unverified. S09 S26	The identities, exclusion roles and nonattribution to direct replication of both current reports were checked. No unique direct-trial count or effect of 0 was established.	Study identifiers, bibliography and roles for both reports, plus family-linkage materials for additional registrations or related reports.	When collecting materials, link reports to unique trial families and manage follow-ups, repeat citations and subgroup analyses of the same trial as one family.
22	Verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N22 · Actual reading scopeWere current local-summary reading and historical publisher-abstract access distinguished for each material?Required	The entire preserved manuscript and exact quotations for each relevant row were read in this work. Historical access declarations for both reports are publisher abstracts. External abstracts and full texts were unattempted and unread in this work; individual access dates were left null because the original citation records lack them. The manuscript cut-off of 2026-09-15 was preserved separately. S09 S26	The difference between actual current reading and historical abstract declarations was recorded by material. Historical self-checks are not reused as current clinical full-text reading or independent review.	Exact locations, values and hashes in the preserved materials, original access levels and source locations for both reports, and material-specific reading records.	If external materials are actually obtained later, separately record timing, access/acquisition/reading locations by material type and compare full-text results with the current summaries.
23	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N23 · Search and selection scopeCan the original search’s databases, strategies and selection scope be traced in the current inputs?Required	The original search cut-off is 2026-09-15 and a historical-search-record path is recorded. The limitation that not every primary database worldwide was exhaustively searched, and the bounded conclusion that no directly eligible result was identified, are preserved. The separate historical search record was not opened here, so the actual complete search strategies and selection flow were not verified.	The cut-off, log reference and bounded scope were verified, but actual databases, search strategies and selection flow cannot be reproduced from the current inputs alone.	Actual search sources, strategies, timing, selection/exclusion flow and coverage of unpublished/registered materials and corrections in the historical search record.	When a subsequent update is authorized, reproducibly record question-specific search sources, strategies, selection and links to registered/unpublished materials; state whether the search was exhaustive.
24	Verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N24 · Preserving original ? and nullWere the original ?, absent score, unused axes and bounded no-eligible-human-result marker preserved unchanged?Required	The original verdict is ? with no score; replication, independence, effect, bias and precision other than B/P are null. The no-eligible-human-result marker is true, human-research existence is null, and eligible-human-result identification is false. The original interpretation is limited to failure to identify a directly eligible result in the documented search, distinct from no effect or worldwide absence.	Original types, values and the bounded interpretation were preserved precisely without conversion into a new clinical score, an effect of 0 or equivalence.	Exact wording of the original grade, score, assessment axes, human-research existence and eligible-result flags, calculation records and bounded unverified interpretation.	If eligible materials are verified later, record previous status, dates and evidence separately from the new decision event. Do not derive clinical scores from row counts or verification rates in this table.
25	Unverified	Full text not readStored summary read	N25 · Funding and interestsCan research funding, product provision and conflicts of interest for direct MCI evidence be verified?Supplementary; required for independence claims	Funding fields for both adjacent reports are strings stating that funding is unverified or not used for this page’s grade. The original independence axis is null; independence was not assigned to a question without a directly eligible result. S09 S26	No materials establish actual funding, provision, conflicts of interest or independent replication for direct MCI results.	Funding, conflicts of interest, product provision, author/institution materials and related trial-family records for direct MCI reports.	Future research should disclose funding, product provision and author relationships; link families of replication studies and conflicts separately for interpretation.
26	Unverified	Full text not readStored summary read	N26 · Harm events and denominatorsCan adverse-event definitions, collection and denominators be verified under the same ordinary-B1–MCI exposure?Supplementary; required for safety claims	Actual dose, duration and safety denominators for the exact MCI question are unverified. The adverse-event value is null; the source explicitly avoids presenting tolerability from other molecular forms or dementia trials as equivalent.	Actual event collection, denominators and event values in the same population/exposure could not be verified. Unknown information is not evidence of safety or 0 adverse events.	Adverse-event definitions, collection methods, events/exposure denominators by group, severity and discontinuations in ordinary-B1 MCI research.	Systematically collect harms in the same population/exposure separately from efficacy outcomes; disclose affected-person counts, event counts, denominators and duration together.
27	Unverified	Full text not readStored summary read	N27 · Harm timing and comparisonsCan exposure timing, comparisons and follow-up losses for harms be verified in the same MCI materials?Supplementary; required for comparative safety	Duration and safety denominators for direct MCI exposure are unverified, and the current summary contains no verified materials on harm timelines, comparisons or follow-up losses in the same population. Tolerability from other molecular forms or dementia was not substituted.	Materials linking event timing, comparisons and follow-up scope under the same population/exposure are unavailable, preventing a judgment about risk or causality.	Event timelines, discontinuation/recovery, group comparisons, follow-up losses and completeness of event disclosure under the same ordinary-B1 MCI exposure.	Use the same safety follow-up procedures in both groups; collect exposure, onset/recovery and attrition, and report limitations of comparative risk.
28	Unverified	Full text not readStored summary read	N28 · Interaction coverageWas drug-interaction information for ordinary B1 in MCI sufficiently verified?Supplementary; required for interaction claims	The original record explicitly states that no separate comprehensive search of all drug interactions was performed. Actual group-specific concomitant-vitamin details and safety information for the exact MCI exposure are also unverified.	No separate search and unknown actual concomitant-treatment details cannot be converted into safety or absence of interactions.	Actual concomitant medicines, dose, timing and materials/search coverage and results for specific interactions.	Subsequent safety assessments should record actual concomitant medicines and review suitable exposure/outcome materials for each specified interaction question.
29	Not applicable	Full text not readStored summary read	N29 · Dose and long-term extensionsDoes the current table claim an optimal dose, persistence after discontinuation or long-term cognitive effects?Supplementary; required for extension claims	The current table addresses only comparative cognitive change with ordinary B1 in MCI. With direct dose, duration and effect unverified, it makes no claim about optimal dose, persistence after discontinuation or long-term efficacy/safety.	Because optimal-dose and long-term-maintenance extensions are not added to the current original claim, verification of those extensions is not required here.	Direct dose comparisons, discontinuation/long-term follow-up and exposure/timepoint-specific results if an extension question is newly addressed.	If an extension is needed, separately plan dose comparisons and discontinuation/long-term follow-up; report direct estimates and safety information.
30	Not applicable	Full text not readStored summary read	N30 · Dementia-prevention extensionIs cognitive-test change extended to dementia prevention, quality of life or mortality effects?Supplementary; required for clinical-event extensions	The selected question concerns change on validated cognitive tests; dementia incidence, quality of life and mortality were not adopted as independent endpoints. Established-Alzheimer-dementia results are likewise not transferred as MCI effects.	Because no separate clinical-event extension is claimed, event results are not required for the current cognitive-change table.	Population, denominators, duration and comparative results directly measuring dementia incidence/clinical function, quality of life or survival if an extension question is addressed.	To evaluate clinical events or quality of life, plan separate research with clear event definitions and appropriate follow-up/denominators, and report independently of cognitive scores.
31	Unverified	Full text not readStored summary read	N31 · Assay-interference coverageCan presence or absence of interference be judged within the original assay-interference verification scope?Supplementary; required for assay-interference claims	The original assay-interference value is null and its information state is no separate search performed. The statement that no separate systematic search was performed and that this must not be read as absence of interference was preserved. The selected endpoint is cognitive-test change, distinct from blood vitamers.	No separately verified interference materials support a judgment about presence or absence. This is neither a cognitive-effect verdict nor a finding of measurement failure.	Materials on specific assays, actual B1 exposure and interference/errors, plus separate search/verification coverage.	For a subsequent question, specify the assay actually used, compare exposure and sampling/assessment timing with assay principles, and perform the necessary validation.
32	Verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N32 · Updates and reference scopeWere the original update conditions and the separate records not opened here clearly documented?Required	New eligible evidence, full-text/registration results, numerical/unit changes, source corrections and retractions were preserved as subsequent update triggers. Separate historical search records, historical verification reports, historical numerical records, the calculator, earlier verdict 162 and examples were not opened here. The original verdict remains a publishable record of current uncertainty.	The original update policy was distinguished from the actual unread-reference scope. Acquisition of subsequent materials or public deployment is not claimed to have been completed.	Original update policy, editorial references and identities, dates and scope of subsequent materials/corrections, with before/after records.	In later updates, preserve actual new materials, dates and reading levels together with previous values and change reasons; separately review linked rows and whether conditions need revision.

No items match your search or filter.

32 itemsWhat the statuses mean

Assessment scope

Stored-material review date: 2026-10-05
Original evidence date: 2026-09-15
Scope actually checked: Preserved Korean and English review summaries, case-specific conditions and application records, and preserved methodological principles. Full papers, supplements, registrations, plans and original data were not read.
What the dates mean: This is the date the preserved materials were reviewed, not the date of a new search of the clinical literature.
Population: Adults with mild cognitive impairment (MCI); established Alzheimer dementia and confirmed B1-deficiency encephalopathy excluded
Ingredient, formulation and route: The question concerns single-ingredient oral ordinary thiamine; the exact salt and formulation of an eligible MCI result are unverified
Dose: Dose in an eligible MCI trial unverified
Comparator: Question: placebo, no addition, or the same usual care; eligible between-group MCI results unverified
Measured outcome: Change on a validated cognitive test; the specific scale in an eligible MCI trial is unverified
Duration: Duration of an eligible MCI trial unverified
Questions outside this scope: Benfotiamine; Established Alzheimer dementia; Confirmed B1-deficiency encephalopathy; Effects of ingredient combinations; Dementia prevention, survival and optimal dose

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.

S09 · Gibson et al. — benfotiamine and cognitive decline in early Alzheimer disease (2020)

Official source

Material type: Clinical paper
Materials actually read: The relevant evidence, citations and full context in the preserved Korean and English manuscript were read. External abstracts and full texts were unattempted, unacquired and unread in this work.
Findings recorded in the stored summary: The cognitive trial used benfotiamine, a different molecular intervention from ordinary thiamine.
Record level: Preserved adjacent-study summaries and their attribution in the body text were retained. These are neither direct ordinary-thiamine–MCI results nor a new clinical assessment.
Study overlap and independent replication: This benfotiamine/early-Alzheimer-disease report is not a direct result for ordinary B1 in MCI.

Public availability, access and reading status by material
Material	Public availability	Access status	Actually read	Notes
Publisher abstract	Current public availability unverified	External access not attempted in this work	Unread in this work	The historically recorded access level is publisher abstract. Individual access dates are unverified. An abs or fullarticle URL path does not establish the actual reading level; no external access, acquisition or reading occurred in this work.
Clinical-paper full text	Direct full-text URL and current public availability unverified	External access not attempted in this work	Unread in this work	The direct full-text URL and actual reading are unverified. The report link is a preserved bibliographic connection; historical abstract access is not copied to the full text. External access, acquisition and reading were not performed in this work.
Preserved verdict summary	Preserved material	Preserved summary accessed and read	Preserved summary read	This is a preserved summary read in the current work. It is distinct from the external clinical abstract/full text; historical abstract access is not upgraded to full-text reading.

S26 · Nolan et al. — a trial of thiamine in Alzheimer disease (1991)

Official source

Material type: Clinical paper
Materials actually read: The relevant evidence, citations and full context in the preserved Korean and English manuscript were read. External abstracts and full texts were unattempted, unacquired and unread in this work.
Findings recorded in the stored summary: Human cognitive research on ordinary thiamine does exist, but this study involved Alzheimer dementia. It does not provide an isolated MCI result for the present claim. The Korean and English body text records a negative ordinary-thiamine dementia result. This is not transferred to MCI to declare no effect or repeated refutation.
Record level: Preserved adjacent-study summaries and their attribution in the body text were retained. These are neither direct ordinary-thiamine–MCI results nor a new clinical assessment.
Study overlap and independent replication: This ordinary-thiamine report involved Alzheimer dementia and provides no isolated MCI result. The body text’s negative-result statement is not transferred to an MCI effect of 0.

Public availability, access and reading status by material
Material	Public availability	Access status	Actually read	Notes
Publisher abstract	Current public availability unverified	External access not attempted in this work	Unread in this work	The historically recorded access level is publisher abstract. Individual access dates are unverified. An abs or fullarticle URL path does not establish the actual reading level; no external access, acquisition or reading occurred in this work.
Clinical-paper full text	Direct full-text URL and current public availability unverified	External access not attempted in this work	Unread in this work	The direct full-text URL and actual reading are unverified. The report link is a preserved bibliographic connection; historical abstract access is not copied to the full text. External access, acquisition and reading were not performed in this work.
Preserved verdict summary	Preserved material	Preserved summary accessed and read	Preserved summary read	This is a preserved summary read in the current work. It is distinct from the external clinical abstract/full text; historical abstract access is not upgraded to full-text reading.

Report counts versus independent study counts

2 is the number of cited reports, not the number of directly eligible ordinary-thiamine–MCI trials or unique participants. S09 concerns benfotiamine in early Alzheimer disease and differs in ingredient; S26 concerns ordinary thiamine in Alzheimer dementia and differs in population. Unique-trial and independent-replication counts remain unverified without comparison of clinical full texts and registrations.

Review criteria

Version NGM-3087-ORDINARY-B1-MCI-1.0 · 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 this table’s question about ordinary B1 alone and cognitive change in MCI, and its exclusions, clear?

Required materials and conditions: A boundary record linking the current claim’s wording, question identity, population, endpoint and comparison.
Conditions for verification: Link single-ingredient oral ordinary thiamine, adults with MCI, change on validated cognitive tests and comparison with placebo, no addition or the same usual care; exclude other molecular forms, dementia and deficiency encephalopathy.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Unverified scales, doses or durations do not justify inventing combinations as new claims.
Why this condition is needed: This boundary is required to avoid combining cognitive improvement in MCI and dementia treatment into one effect status.
Referenced methods: Common conditions C01, C04, C05, C06 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

N02 · Can MCI diagnosis, selection and baseline cognition be verified for an actual comparative result on ordinary B1?

Required materials and conditions: Eligibility criteria, diagnostic procedures, baseline characteristics and isolated MCI results from an eligible MCI trial.
Conditions for verification: Verify clinical MCI diagnostic criteria, age, baseline cognition, eligibility and MCI-only results; distinguish established dementia and deficiency encephalopathy.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Retain mixed diagnostic populations and examine whether separate MCI results exist. Unverified information does not mean that there is no effect in MCI.
Why this condition is needed: Relabeling an established Alzheimer disease population as MCI because both concern cognition would misapply the population.
Referenced methods: Common conditions C04, E08 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

N03 · Was benfotiamine distinguished from direct MCI evidence for ordinary thiamine?

Required materials and conditions: Current source locations supporting S09’s intervention identity and its distinction from ordinary B1.
Conditions for verification: Distinguish the original record that S09 used benfotiamine from ordinary thiamine; do not use its cognitive results as the current effect of B1 alone.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: This exclusion neither denies benfotiamine efficacy nor establishes equivalence among all B1 derivatives.
Why this condition is needed: This is required to avoid transferring results from a different molecular form to ordinary B1 simply because it is a related search term.
Referenced methods: Common conditions C05, C08, E02 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

N04 · Can the actual ordinary-B1 salt, formulation and route in an eligible MCI result be verified?

Required materials and conditions: Treatment composition, salt/formulation, product specifications, actual administration route and the original report for a comparative ordinary-thiamine MCI study.
Conditions for verification: Distinguish the question’s single oral ingredient from the actual result’s ingredient, salt, product, formulation and route; link the source identity of the actual report.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not infer hydrochloride from the name ordinary thiamine or transfer results from another route to oral administration.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid treating the question’s oral route as verification of an actual trial route.
Referenced methods: Common conditions C05, E02 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

N05 · Can the actual ordinary-B1 dose and adherence in MCI be verified?

Required materials and conditions: Dose, frequency, actual exposure, adherence and changes or discontinuations in an eligible MCI trial.
Conditions for verification: Verify nominal dose, frequency, actual use, adherence and changes; do not copy doses from other molecular forms or dementia trials into MCI.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Missing adherence information does not prove nonadherence. This table provides no individual dosing instructions.
Why this condition is needed: This condition is needed to attribute cognitive results to actual exposure without substituting doses from other trials.
Referenced methods: Common conditions C05, E02, E08 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

N06 · Can actual MCI treatment duration and cognitive-assessment timing be verified?

Required materials and conditions: Treatment, discontinuation and cognitive-assessment schedules and outcome-specific timepoints from an eligible MCI trial.
Conditions for verification: Link treatment start and end, assessments and follow-up to the relevant cognitive result; do not interpret unknown duration as a long-term effect.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not prescribe a universal numerical minimum treatment duration or long-term maintenance period.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid using the duration of related dementia research as the observation window for the current MCI cognitive-change question.
Referenced methods: Common conditions C05, C06, E08 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

N07 · Can baseline B1 status and the method for diagnosing deficiency in the MCI population be verified?

Required materials and conditions: Baseline B1-status tables, testing/deficiency definitions, exclusion of deficiency encephalopathy and relevant subgroup results for an eligible MCI population.
Conditions for verification: Verify nutritional status, deficiency definitions and baseline B1 values; distinguish treatment results for confirmed deficiency encephalopathy from cognitive effects in general MCI.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not describe nutritional status as normal when deficiency tests are missing. Do not create new effect subgroups based on current deficiency status.
Why this condition is needed: This condition avoids converting responses to treatment of confirmed deficiency into supplementation efficacy in MCI with unknown deficiency status.
Referenced methods: Common conditions C04, E08 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

N08 · Can total dietary intake and other supplement exposure in each group be verified?

Required materials and conditions: Dietary B1, supplement composition, intake, exposure changes and their analytical handling by group.
Conditions for verification: Verify total B1 exposure and group distributions or changes in diet and supplements; do not attribute other nutritional differences to ordinary B1 alone.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not convert unverified total intake into 0 intake or absence of all supplement use.
Why this condition is needed: Even when asking about adding a single ingredient, differences in background nutritional exposure matter for interpreting its contribution.
Referenced methods: Common conditions C05, E02, H05 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

N09 · Can an actual comparator differing only in ordinary B1 be verified for an eligible MCI result?

Required materials and conditions: Treatment/control composition, shared usual care, background treatment by group and actual results for an eligible MCI comparison.
Conditions for verification: Verify the actual placebo, no-addition or identical-usual-care comparator and explain whether ordinary B1 is the only difference between groups.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Absence of placebo alone does not automatically invalidate a result; record the actual comparison and confounding limitations.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid presenting the comparison planned in the question as a comparison that was actually performed.
Referenced methods: Common conditions C05, E01, E02 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

N10 · Can concomitant medicines, rescue treatment and treatment changes that may affect cognition be verified by group?

Required materials and conditions: Concomitant medicines and vitamins, rescue treatment, adherence/treatment changes and their analytical handling for an eligible MCI result.
Conditions for verification: Verify concomitant vitamins, cognitive-disease treatment, rescue treatment and discontinuations or changes; distinguish their contribution from that of ordinary B1.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Unknown concomitant details do not mean there was no concomitant treatment; not every change must be identical across groups.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to protect attribution to the selected ingredient without assuming shared treatment in the usual-care question.
Referenced methods: Common conditions E02, E04, H05 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

N11 · Was the cognitive-function question distinguished from blood vitamers and mechanistic markers?

Required materials and conditions: Current source and nutritional-extraction records showing the distinction between the question’s endpoint and biochemical markers.
Conditions for verification: Retain the selected endpoint as change on a patient’s cognitive test; do not substitute biochemical, mechanistic or advertising statements for its direct effect.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Verification that this is a patient-function question does not verify an actual cognitive effect.
Why this condition is needed: This boundary prevents automatically extending improvements in blood vitamers to improvements in patient cognition.
Referenced methods: Common conditions C06, E03, E09 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

N12 · Can the cognitive scale, direction and measurement procedures for an eligible MCI result be verified?

Required materials and conditions: Cognitive-scale specifications, assessment procedures, assessors/blinding and timepoint-specific results in a comparative MCI study.
Conditions for verification: Link a validated scale’s name, unit, direction of improvement, assessment timing, assessors/blinding and handling of practice effects to its results.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: When the specific scale is unverified, do not invent ADAS-Cog, CDR or another scale from adjacent research. Unknown blinding does not establish blinding failure.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid combining scores and measurement differences from different cognitive tests into one effect.
Referenced methods: Common conditions C06, E03 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

N13 · Can registration and the planned primary endpoint of an eligible MCI trial be compared with the actual report?

Required materials and conditions: Registration, protocol, analysis plan and original report of the relevant cognitive result for an eligible MCI trial.
Conditions for verification: Compare primary endpoints, timepoints and analyses in the registration/protocol and analysis plan with actual reports; verify reasons for changes.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Freezing this table’s conditions with knowledge of the current materials does not replace clinical-trial preregistration.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid treating an unavailable plan as proof of selective reporting or absence of an eligible trial.
Referenced methods: Common conditions C06, C09, E06 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

N14 · Can the actual design, allocation and concealment of an eligible ordinary-B1–MCI comparison be verified?

Required materials and conditions: Methods materials on design, randomization/concealment, baseline characteristics by group and blinding for a directly eligible study.
Conditions for verification: Link parallel/crossover/cluster and randomized/nonrandomized design, allocation/concealment and baseline balance to the selected cognitive result.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Unknown design does not justify marking crossover or cluster conditions not applicable. Retain any nonrandomized evidence with its design and limitations.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid claiming verified control of confounding in an MCI comparison based only on a trial title or the design of adjacent research.
Referenced methods: Common conditions E01, E03, E04 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

N15 · Can actual analysis denominators, attrition and missing data for MCI cognitive results be verified?

Required materials and conditions: Participant flow, numbers assessed/analyzed at each cognitive timepoint, dropout reasons and missing-data handling in direct MCI research.
Conditions for verification: Distinguish selection, allocation, completion, measurement and analysis denominators, and missingness reasons/handling; link these to the relevant cognitive result.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: When an adjacent paper’s n field provides no number, do not infer a participant count or 0 dropouts.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid substituting references to separate files or randomized participant counts for actual cognitive-analysis denominators.
Referenced methods: Common conditions C07, E04, H06 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

N16 · Can the definition and analysis of an actual between-group MCI effect be verified?

Required materials and conditions: Effect-of-interest definition, analysis population, model, group results and between-group estimates for an eligible MCI comparison.
Conditions for verification: Link assignment/adherence effects, ITT/PP, final values/change scores, between-/within-group definitions, adjustment models and design handling to actual results.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not fill an unknown analysis population with ITT; the manuscript’s analysis-attempt records are not actual cognitive effects.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid transferring cognitive results from related research or within-group improvement to a between-group effect of ordinary B1 in MCI.
Referenced methods: Common conditions C06, E04 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

N17 · Can direct cognitive-change effects, variability, CIs and an important difference be verified?

Required materials and conditions: Scale-specific between-group effects, variability types, denominators, CIs and evidence for clinical-importance criteria for an eligible MCI result.
Conditions for verification: Distinguish actual scales, between-group effects, SD/SE, denominators and CIs; compare with an evidence-based important difference or record why interpretation is unavailable.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not estimate new effects from P values or invent universal numerical minimums for duration, sample size, study count or importance.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid writing an unknown effect as 0 or interpreting ? and null as numerical small-effect or low-precision values.
Referenced methods: Common conditions C07, E05 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

N18 · Was S09’s cognitive-trial summary separated from a direct effect of ordinary B1 in MCI?

Required materials and conditions: Preserved bibliography, intervention, population/endpoint, exclusion role and result-summary locations for S09.
Conditions for verification: Explain how S09’s benfotiamine/early-Alzheimer-disease endpoint differs from the current question; do not delete the adjacent report or count it as direct replication.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: This source provides no numerical results, CIs or denominators for S09. No new assessment of the whole paper’s effect direction or precision is made here.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to preserve the existence of human cognitive trials without inheriting results from other molecular forms or diseases as the current effect.
Referenced methods: Common conditions C04, C05, C06, C08, E07 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

N19 · Was the negative ordinary-thiamine dementia result kept from becoming a conclusion of no effect in MCI?

Required materials and conditions: S26 population/endpoint, ordinary-B1 identity, preserved results and original body-text locations addressing the negative result.
Conditions for verification: Preserve both S26’s established-Alzheimer-dementia population and the manuscript’s negative-result statement; do not transfer these to an MCI effect of 0, equivalence or repeated refutation.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: The source provides no actual S26 numerical results, P values/CIs or denominators; do not invent statistical no-difference findings or effect sizes.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to retain unfavorable adjacent findings while respecting applicability limits arising from differences in the actual question.
Referenced methods: Common conditions C04, C08, E07 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

N20 · Were the benfotiamine paper’s identifier correction and both reports’ bibliographic links preserved accurately?

Required materials and conditions: Exact original wording of current citation/evidence records and the PMID/DOI linkage correction.
Conditions for verification: Link the original correction’s PMID/DOI to citation/evidence identity without labeling this as a current external identity check or full-text verification.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not interpret a publisher URL’s existence or its /fullarticle path as successful full-text reading.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid mixing a potentially mislinked paper identifier with different effect evidence.
Referenced methods: Common conditions C02, C03, C09 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

N21 · Were the two adjacent reports kept from being counted as independent replications of direct MCI trials?

Required materials and conditions: Study identifiers, bibliography and roles for both reports, plus family-linkage materials for additional registrations or related reports.
Conditions for verification: Link bibliographic/study identifiers and exclusion roles; distinguish report counts from unique directly eligible trial and participant counts.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Identifiers alone do not fully verify institutional or participant independence across studies. Leave undetermined direct-trial and participant counts null.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid counting two different citations as 2 direct MCI replications or 2 independent refutations.
Referenced methods: Common conditions C02, E07 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

N22 · Were current local-summary reading and historical publisher-abstract access distinguished for each material?

Required materials and conditions: Exact locations, values and hashes in the preserved materials, original access levels and source locations for both reports, and material-specific reading records.
Conditions for verification: Separate actual reading of the current preserved manuscript summaries from both external abstracts/full texts being unattempted and unread; preserve historical publisher-abstract access, source locations and null individual dates.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Not attempted does not mean access failed. When a citation record lacks an individual access date, leave it null; do not copy the original review date into the access date.
Why this condition is needed: This display condition is required to avoid upgrading a link or historical abstract access to current full-text reading.
Referenced methods: Common conditions C03, C09 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

N23 · Can the original search’s databases, strategies and selection scope be traced in the current inputs?

Required materials and conditions: Actual search sources, strategies, timing, selection/exclusion flow and coverage of unpublished/registered materials and corrections in the historical search record.
Conditions for verification: Preserve the evidence cut-off and bounded search conclusion; distinguish whether actual search strategies, databases and exclusion flow have been obtained.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: No new clinical search is performed here, and the separate historical-search-record path is not claimed to have been opened. Incomplete searching is not displayed as 0 studies.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid extending absence statements in the preserved summaries to absence from all current literature.
Referenced methods: Common conditions C09, E06 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

N24 · Were the original ?, absent score, unused axes and bounded no-eligible-human-result marker preserved unchanged?

Required materials and conditions: Exact wording of the original grade, score, assessment axes, human-research existence and eligible-result flags, calculation records and bounded unverified interpretation.
Conditions for verification: Preserve the original grade/score, B/P, null unused axes, false and empty arrays, and the bounded no-eligible-human-result meaning; do not convert these into new efficacy/safety scores or an effect of 0.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: The original absent score and null unused axes are not 0. Passing current structural checks is separate from assessing clinical efficacy.
Why this condition is needed: This meaning boundary is required to prevent reading the original ? as total absence of human research, no effect or E0/RX/F.
Referenced methods: Common conditions C01, C08, C09, E05 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

N25 · Can research funding, product provision and conflicts of interest for direct MCI evidence be verified?

Required materials and conditions: Funding, conflicts of interest, product provision, author/institution materials and related trial-family records for direct MCI reports.
Conditions for verification: Verify actual funding, product provision, author employment/patents, declared interests and study families; do not interpret unknown information as independent funding.
Requirement and applicability: Supplementary; required for independence claims
Application exceptions: Do not automatically exclude evidence because of conflicts or infer absence of bias because no conflict is reported. Do not assign a new independence axis when direct results are unavailable.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid treating unknown funding in adjacent reports or the original null independence axis as evidence of independent funding or replication.
Referenced methods: Common conditions C10, C02 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

N26 · Can adverse-event definitions, collection and denominators be verified under the same ordinary-B1–MCI exposure?

Required materials and conditions: Adverse-event definitions, collection methods, events/exposure denominators by group, severity and discontinuations in ordinary-B1 MCI research.
Conditions for verification: Link actual dose, duration, event definitions/severity, collection methods, affected-person/event counts and exposure denominators.
Requirement and applicability: Supplementary; required for safety claims
Application exceptions: Do not transfer tolerability from other molecular forms or dementia trials as equivalent. Do not calculate incidence without denominators.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid turning the existence of a cognitive trial or summary into a claim of safety or 0 adverse events.
Referenced methods: Common conditions E10, H01, H04, H09, C07 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

N27 · Can exposure timing, comparisons and follow-up losses for harms be verified in the same MCI materials?

Required materials and conditions: Event timelines, discontinuation/recovery, group comparisons, follow-up losses and completeness of event disclosure under the same ordinary-B1 MCI exposure.
Conditions for verification: Link exposure start/stop, event onset/recovery, follow-up, comparators and attrition/detection by group; temporal sequence alone does not establish causality.
Requirement and applicability: Supplementary; required for comparative safety
Application exceptions: Do not infer improvement after discontinuation or re-exposure when these are absent. Unverified information also does not mean a harm event occurred.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid upgrading harms unseen in short or incomplete summaries to safety, causality or total incidence.
Referenced methods: Common conditions H02, H03, H06, H08, H09, E10 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

N28 · Was drug-interaction information for ordinary B1 in MCI sufficiently verified?

Required materials and conditions: Actual concomitant medicines, dose, timing and materials/search coverage and results for specific interactions.
Conditions for verification: Distinguish drug-interaction search/verification coverage from actual concomitant exposure; do not interpret absence of a separate search as absence of interactions.
Requirement and applicability: Supplementary; required for interaction claims
Application exceptions: Failure to perform a comprehensive search alone establishes neither presence nor absence of interactions. Do not create individual dosing instructions.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid extending the efficacy manuscript’s scope into a guarantee of individual safety with all medicines.
Referenced methods: Common conditions C09, E10, H05, H08 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

N29 · Does the current table claim an optimal dose, persistence after discontinuation or long-term cognitive effects?

Required materials and conditions: Direct dose comparisons, discontinuation/long-term follow-up and exposure/timepoint-specific results if an extension question is newly addressed.
Conditions for verification: Separate the fixed comparative cognitive-change question from optimal-dose or long-term-maintenance extensions, and do not claim those extensions.
Requirement and applicability: Supplementary; required for extension claims
Application exceptions: Do not require all dose and long-term studies for the current narrow cognitive-change question. Original dose/duration uncertainty remains in other rows.
Why this condition is needed: This supplementary boundary prevents extending an unverified main effect to a specific regimen or long-term effect.
Referenced methods: Common conditions E08, H08 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

N30 · Is cognitive-test change extended to dementia prevention, quality of life or mortality effects?

Required materials and conditions: Population, denominators, duration and comparative results directly measuring dementia incidence/clinical function, quality of life or survival if an extension question is addressed.
Conditions for verification: Separate cognitive-test change itself from clinical events, quality of life and survival; do not use the current results as evidence for those separate questions.
Requirement and applicability: Supplementary; required for clinical-event extensions
Application exceptions: Do not require an event trial for a numerical-change question. Unverified direct cognitive effects do not establish an event effect of 0.
Why this condition is needed: This condition avoids automatically extending a cognitive-test question to dementia prevention or every improvement in patients’ lives.
Referenced methods: Common conditions C06, E09 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

N31 · Can presence or absence of interference be judged within the original assay-interference verification scope?

Required materials and conditions: Materials on specific assays, actual B1 exposure and interference/errors, plus separate search/verification coverage.
Conditions for verification: Do not convert absence of a separate assay-interference search into absence of interference; limit relevance to cognitive assessment or separate biochemical tests to the verified scope.
Requirement and applicability: Supplementary; required for assay-interference claims
Application exceptions: The current cognitive-change question does not itself claim assay interference. Absence of a separate search does not establish that cognitive-trial measurement errors occurred either.
Why this condition is needed: This supplementary condition avoids extending an unsearched interference question to error-free assessment tools or biochemical-assay safety.
Referenced methods: Common conditions C06, C09, E03 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

N32 · Were the original update conditions and the separate records not opened here clearly documented?

Required materials and conditions: Original update policy, editorial references and identities, dates and scope of subsequent materials/corrections, with before/after records.
Conditions for verification: Distinguish new-evidence, full-text/registration acquisition, numerical/identity correction and retraction events from manuscript/condition revisions; do not upgrade unread referenced files into the actual reading scope.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Only reference strings for historical search records, historical numerical records, the calculator, earlier 162 and supporting examples were read; their individual sources were not opened. The possibility of an update does not establish that a result currently exists.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid presenting reference paths and historical self-checks as current reinvestigation or automatic verification.
Referenced methods: Common conditions C03, C09, E06 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

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 document the question, eligibility conditions and reasons for changes, and distinguish intervention variants.
Extent of review: Preserved methodological principles, application records and copy hashes were compared. No new external methodology documents were queried and no complete official assessment tool was applied.

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 and link studies and reports; do not omit studies solely because results are unreported.
Extent of review: Preserved methodological principles, application records and copy hashes were compared. No new external methodology documents were queried and no complete official assessment tool was applied.

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

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

Referenced principle: Fix the outcome and effect of interest when reviewing randomization, attrition, missing data, measurement and selective reporting.
Extent of review: Preserved methodological principles, application records and copy hashes were compared. No new external methodology documents were queried and no complete official assessment tool was applied.

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 values, intervals, importance and applicability. Sample size alone does not determine precision.
Extent of review: Preserved methodological principles, application records and copy hashes were compared. No new external methodology documents were queried and no complete official assessment tool was applied.

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.
Extent of review: Preserved methodological principles, application records and copy hashes were compared. No new external methodology documents were queried and no complete official assessment tool was applied.

What the statuses mean

Verified: Verification of the specified question, identity, attribution and current work scope; separate from establishing clinical efficacy
Partly verified: Some actual information about the question is verified, while remaining data for that condition are unverified
Unverified: Direct information about the actual condition could not be verified in the current preserved inputs; not 0, no effect or worldwide absence
Unread: The external material was not actually read in this work; local-summary reading is separate
Not applicable: Nonapplicability limited to extension questions not required by the current fixed claim

Change history

2026-10-31 · Public page/material version 1.0

Public display and data were created from the existing 32 items. No new clinical search, verification-status change or scoring was performed.

The stored-material review date (2026-10-05) and original evidence cut-off (2026-09-15) were retained unchanged.

Researcher downloads

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

View all item details

N01 · Are this table’s question about ordinary B1 alone and cognitive change in MCI, and its exclusions, clear?

Current findings: The original claim concerns the comparative effect of single-ingredient oral ordinary thiamine on validated cognitive-test change in adults with MCI. The subclaim list is an actual empty array; one independent question was retained without inventing a specific scale, dose or duration.
Verification status: Verified
Materials actually read: The relevant locations and context of the preserved review summaries were read. External clinical abstracts and full texts were not read in this work.
Why unverified: The selected question and exclusions are explicit in the preserved source. This verification does not establish a direct clinical effect.
Reason for missing information: Specific eligible-trial conditions remain unverified in the individual rows below.
Required materials and conditions: A boundary record linking the current claim’s wording, question identity, population, endpoint and comparison.
Materials to obtain first: A boundary record linking the current claim’s wording, question identity, population, endpoint and comparison.
Further research: Before searching for eligible materials or designing a study later, specify this PICO and separate other molecular forms and diagnostic groups into different questions.
Remaining uncertainty: Specific eligible-trial conditions remain unverified in the individual rows below.
Conditions for verification: Link single-ingredient oral ordinary thiamine, adults with MCI, change on validated cognitive tests and comparison with placebo, no addition or the same usual care; exclude other molecular forms, dementia and deficiency encephalopathy.
Why this condition is needed: This boundary is required to avoid combining cognitive improvement in MCI and dementia treatment into one effect status.
Application exceptions: Unverified scales, doses or durations do not justify inventing combinations as new claims.
Referenced methods: Common conditions C01, C04, C05, C06 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

Related sources

N02 · Can MCI diagnosis, selection and baseline cognition be verified for an actual comparative result on ordinary B1?

Current findings: The question concerns adults with MCI and excludes established Alzheimer dementia and confirmed B1-deficiency encephalopathy. The preserved summaries do not establish an isolated MCI result for ordinary B1; S26 involved established Alzheimer dementia.
Verification status: Unverified
Materials actually read: The relevant locations and context of the preserved review summaries were read. External clinical abstracts and full texts were not read in this work.
Why unverified: The question’s population is fixed, but actual diagnosis, selection and baseline characteristics for an eligible MCI result have not been verified.
Reason for missing information: Diagnostic criteria, composition, selection and isolated results for an eligible MCI population are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Eligibility criteria, diagnostic procedures, baseline characteristics and isolated MCI results from an eligible MCI trial.
Materials to obtain first: Eligibility criteria, diagnostic procedures, baseline characteristics and isolated MCI results from an eligible MCI trial.
Further research: Report population flow and results together in a comparative study that clearly selects clinical MCI and records baseline cognition and deficiency status.
Remaining uncertainty: Diagnostic criteria, composition, selection and isolated results for an eligible MCI population are unverified.
Conditions for verification: Verify clinical MCI diagnostic criteria, age, baseline cognition, eligibility and MCI-only results; distinguish established dementia and deficiency encephalopathy.
Why this condition is needed: Relabeling an established Alzheimer disease population as MCI because both concern cognition would misapply the population.
Application exceptions: Retain mixed diagnostic populations and examine whether separate MCI results exist. Unverified information does not mean that there is no effect in MCI.
Referenced methods: Common conditions C04, E08 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

Related sources S26

N03 · Was benfotiamine distinguished from direct MCI evidence for ordinary thiamine?

Current findings: S09 used benfotiamine in its cognitive trial. The preserved summary classified it as a molecular form different from ordinary thiamine and did not adopt it as a direct result for the current ordinary-B1–MCI question.
Verification status: Verified
Materials actually read: The relevant locations and context of the preserved review summaries were read. External clinical abstracts and full texts were not read in this work.
Why unverified: The preserved source explicitly states the intervention identity and exclusion reason, confirming the boundary for attributing direct evidence.
Reason for missing information: The identity of an actual eligible ordinary-B1 intervention in MCI remains separately unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Current source locations supporting S09’s intervention identity and its distinction from ordinary B1.
Materials to obtain first: Current source locations supporting S09’s intervention identity and its distinction from ordinary B1.
Further research: A future comparison of ordinary B1 and benfotiamine would need separately specified molecular interventions and direct comparative results in the same population.
Remaining uncertainty: The identity of an actual eligible ordinary-B1 intervention in MCI remains separately unverified.
Conditions for verification: Distinguish the original record that S09 used benfotiamine from ordinary thiamine; do not use its cognitive results as the current effect of B1 alone.
Why this condition is needed: This is required to avoid transferring results from a different molecular form to ordinary B1 simply because it is a related search term.
Application exceptions: This exclusion neither denies benfotiamine efficacy nor establishes equivalence among all B1 derivatives.
Referenced methods: Common conditions C05, C08, E02 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

Related sources S09

N04 · Can the actual ordinary-B1 salt, formulation and route in an eligible MCI result be verified?

Current findings: The question concerns single-ingredient oral ordinary thiamine. Molecular form, route and chemical-form values for an actual eligible result are null, and the linked-source list is empty; the exact salt and formulation are unverified.
Verification status: Unverified
Materials actually read: The relevant locations and context of the preserved review summaries were read. External clinical abstracts and full texts were not read in this work.
Why unverified: Once the question’s identity is distinguished from actual observations, there are no linked materials establishing an actual eligible preparation or route.
Reason for missing information: Actual ingredient, salt, formulation, product, administration route and linked sources for an eligible MCI result are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Treatment composition, salt/formulation, product specifications, actual administration route and the original report for a comparative ordinary-thiamine MCI study.
Materials to obtain first: Treatment composition, salt/formulation, product specifications, actual administration route and the original report for a comparative ordinary-thiamine MCI study.
Further research: Specify the single ordinary-B1 product and oral administration procedure; distinguish molecular-form and route effects using a comparator with the same concomitant ingredients.
Remaining uncertainty: Actual ingredient, salt, formulation, product, administration route and linked sources for an eligible MCI result are unverified.
Conditions for verification: Distinguish the question’s single oral ingredient from the actual result’s ingredient, salt, product, formulation and route; link the source identity of the actual report.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid treating the question’s oral route as verification of an actual trial route.
Application exceptions: Do not infer hydrochloride from the name ordinary thiamine or transfer results from another route to oral administration.
Referenced methods: Common conditions C05, E02 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

Related sources

N05 · Can the actual ordinary-B1 dose and adherence in MCI be verified?

Current findings: The dose in an eligible MCI trial is unverified. Actual-dose and supplement-dose records have null values; doses and tolerability from other molecular forms or dementia trials are not presented as equivalent.
Verification status: Unverified
Materials actually read: The relevant locations and context of the preserved review summaries were read. External clinical abstracts and full texts were not read in this work.
Why unverified: Directly eligible doses and actual use or adherence records could not be verified from the preserved inputs.
Reason for missing information: Dose, frequency, adherence and changes or discontinuations for single-ingredient ordinary B1 are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Dose, frequency, actual exposure, adherence and changes or discontinuations in an eligible MCI trial.
Materials to obtain first: Dose, frequency, actual exposure, adherence and changes or discontinuations in an eligible MCI trial.
Further research: Collect prescribed and actual doses together and prespecify how adherence and discontinuation will be handled in the analysis. Do not invent an optimal dose or participant count.
Remaining uncertainty: Dose, frequency, adherence and changes or discontinuations for single-ingredient ordinary B1 are unverified.
Conditions for verification: Verify nominal dose, frequency, actual use, adherence and changes; do not copy doses from other molecular forms or dementia trials into MCI.
Why this condition is needed: This condition is needed to attribute cognitive results to actual exposure without substituting doses from other trials.
Application exceptions: Missing adherence information does not prove nonadherence. This table provides no individual dosing instructions.
Referenced methods: Common conditions C05, E02, E08 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

Related sources

N06 · Can actual MCI treatment duration and cognitive-assessment timing be verified?

Current findings: Duration in an eligible MCI trial is unverified. The duration value is null and the linked-source list is empty; actual dose, duration and safety denominators for the current question are also recorded as unverified.
Verification status: Unverified
Materials actually read: The relevant locations and context of the preserved review summaries were read. External clinical abstracts and full texts were not read in this work.
Why unverified: No materials were identified linking administration and measurement periods for a directly eligible result.
Reason for missing information: Actual treatment, assessment, discontinuation and follow-up schedules are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Treatment, discontinuation and cognitive-assessment schedules and outcome-specific timepoints from an eligible MCI trial.
Materials to obtain first: Treatment, discontinuation and cognitive-assessment schedules and outcome-specific timepoints from an eligible MCI trial.
Further research: Plan cognitive-assessment schedules separately from treatment-exposure duration, and report outcomes and attrition at the relevant timepoints.
Remaining uncertainty: Actual treatment, assessment, discontinuation and follow-up schedules are unverified.
Conditions for verification: Link treatment start and end, assessments and follow-up to the relevant cognitive result; do not interpret unknown duration as a long-term effect.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid using the duration of related dementia research as the observation window for the current MCI cognitive-change question.
Application exceptions: Do not prescribe a universal numerical minimum treatment duration or long-term maintenance period.
Referenced methods: Common conditions C05, C06, E08 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

Related sources

N07 · Can baseline B1 status and the method for diagnosing deficiency in the MCI population be verified?

Current findings: Detailed baseline vitamin status and deficiency definitions are unverified and the value is null. Although the question excludes confirmed B1-deficiency encephalopathy, no verified value establishes that an actual eligible MCI population was nondeficient.
Verification status: Unverified
Materials actually read: The relevant locations and context of the preserved review summaries were read. External clinical abstracts and full texts were not read in this work.
Why unverified: An explicit exclusion boundary does not verify actual baseline B1 status or its assessment method in an eligible population.
Reason for missing information: Baseline tests, deficiency definitions, exclusion procedures and results separated by baseline status are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Baseline B1-status tables, testing/deficiency definitions, exclusion of deficiency encephalopathy and relevant subgroup results for an eligible MCI population.
Materials to obtain first: Baseline B1-status tables, testing/deficiency definitions, exclusion of deficiency encephalopathy and relevant subgroup results for an eligible MCI population.
Further research: Measure baseline nutritional status and prespecify hypotheses about effect modification by deficiency, reporting these separately from the main effect.
Remaining uncertainty: Baseline tests, deficiency definitions, exclusion procedures and results separated by baseline status are unverified.
Conditions for verification: Verify nutritional status, deficiency definitions and baseline B1 values; distinguish treatment results for confirmed deficiency encephalopathy from cognitive effects in general MCI.
Why this condition is needed: This condition avoids converting responses to treatment of confirmed deficiency into supplementation efficacy in MCI with unknown deficiency status.
Application exceptions: Do not describe nutritional status as normal when deficiency tests are missing. Do not create new effect subgroups based on current deficiency status.
Referenced methods: Common conditions C04, E08 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

Related sources

N08 · Can total dietary intake and other supplement exposure in each group be verified?

Current findings: Total dietary intake, all supplement exposure and group-specific details of all concomitant vitamins in an eligible comparison are unverified. Both values are null and the linked-source lists are empty.
Verification status: Unverified
Materials actually read: The relevant locations and context of the preserved review summaries were read. External clinical abstracts and full texts were not read in this work.
Why unverified: No actual materials establish the distribution or changes in background exposure for a directly eligible comparison.
Reason for missing information: Total exposure to dietary B1 and other supplements, and changes by group, are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Dietary B1, supplement composition, intake, exposure changes and their analytical handling by group.
Materials to obtain first: Dietary B1, supplement composition, intake, exposure changes and their analytical handling by group.
Further research: Record diet and supplement use in both groups using the same methods; explicitly address differences and changes in background exposure in the analysis.
Remaining uncertainty: Total exposure to dietary B1 and other supplements, and changes by group, are unverified.
Conditions for verification: Verify total B1 exposure and group distributions or changes in diet and supplements; do not attribute other nutritional differences to ordinary B1 alone.
Why this condition is needed: Even when asking about adding a single ingredient, differences in background nutritional exposure matter for interpreting its contribution.
Application exceptions: Do not convert unverified total intake into 0 intake or absence of all supplement use.
Referenced methods: Common conditions C05, E02, H05 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

Related sources

N09 · Can an actual comparator differing only in ordinary B1 be verified for an eligible MCI result?

Current findings: The question specifies comparison with placebo, no addition or the same usual care. Eligible between-group MCI results and the actual comparison are unverified; the record relating the study’s primary endpoint to this table’s endpoint has a null value.
Verification status: Unverified
Materials actually read: The relevant locations and context of the preserved review summaries were read. External clinical abstracts and full texts were not read in this work.
Why unverified: The question defines a comparator, but actual group treatments and usual care for an eligible result could not be verified.
Reason for missing information: Actual comparator composition and materials separating the between-group contribution of B1 alone are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Treatment/control composition, shared usual care, background treatment by group and actual results for an eligible MCI comparison.
Materials to obtain first: Treatment/control composition, shared usual care, background treatment by group and actual results for an eligible MCI comparison.
Further research: Construct a comparison differing only in the addition of ordinary B1; record usual care and treatment changes in both groups to estimate the between-group effect.
Remaining uncertainty: Actual comparator composition and materials separating the between-group contribution of B1 alone are unverified.
Conditions for verification: Verify the actual placebo, no-addition or identical-usual-care comparator and explain whether ordinary B1 is the only difference between groups.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid presenting the comparison planned in the question as a comparison that was actually performed.
Application exceptions: Absence of placebo alone does not automatically invalidate a result; record the actual comparison and confounding limitations.
Referenced methods: Common conditions C05, E01, E02 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

Related sources

N10 · Can concomitant medicines, rescue treatment and treatment changes that may affect cognition be verified by group?

Current findings: Group-specific details of concomitant vitamins in an eligible comparison are unverified. No separate comprehensive search of all drug interactions was performed, and the current inputs lack materials establishing actual concomitant medicines, rescue treatment or treatment changes.
Verification status: Unverified
Materials actually read: The relevant locations and context of the preserved review summaries were read. External clinical abstracts and full texts were not read in this work.
Why unverified: Concomitant-treatment and change information for a direct MCI comparison has not been verified, preventing an assessment of attribution to ordinary B1 using actual data.
Reason for missing information: Concomitant medicines, rescue treatment, treatment changes and handling of the effect of interest by group are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Concomitant medicines and vitamins, rescue treatment, adherence/treatment changes and their analytical handling for an eligible MCI result.
Materials to obtain first: Concomitant medicines and vitamins, rescue treatment, adherence/treatment changes and their analytical handling for an eligible MCI result.
Further research: Collect concomitant and rescue treatments in both groups and prespecify how assignment effects and actual-use effects will be distinguished.
Remaining uncertainty: Concomitant medicines, rescue treatment, treatment changes and handling of the effect of interest by group are unverified.
Conditions for verification: Verify concomitant vitamins, cognitive-disease treatment, rescue treatment and discontinuations or changes; distinguish their contribution from that of ordinary B1.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to protect attribution to the selected ingredient without assuming shared treatment in the usual-care question.
Application exceptions: Unknown concomitant details do not mean there was no concomitant treatment; not every change must be identical across groups.
Referenced methods: Common conditions E02, E04, H05 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

Related sources

N11 · Was the cognitive-function question distinguished from blood vitamers and mechanistic markers?

Current findings: The preserved summary distinguished the patient-function question of validated cognitive-test change from blood vitamers. The biochemical/clinical distinction record has a null value but a verified information state; advertising and mechanistic statements were not adopted as direct clinical evidence.
Verification status: Verified
Materials actually read: The relevant locations and context of the preserved review summaries were read. External clinical abstracts and full texts were not read in this work.
Why unverified: The endpoint’s meaning and the boundary against substituting mechanisms or advertising are explicit in the current source. Actual effect values have not been verified.
Reason for missing information: Eligible cognitive-test results remain separately unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Current source and nutritional-extraction records showing the distinction between the question’s endpoint and biochemical markers.
Materials to obtain first: Current source and nutritional-extraction records showing the distinction between the question’s endpoint and biochemical markers.
Further research: Even if future work collects mechanistic and biochemical markers, report cognitive-test results as a separate endpoint and analyze relationships between markers separately.
Remaining uncertainty: Eligible cognitive-test results remain separately unverified.
Conditions for verification: Retain the selected endpoint as change on a patient’s cognitive test; do not substitute biochemical, mechanistic or advertising statements for its direct effect.
Why this condition is needed: This boundary prevents automatically extending improvements in blood vitamers to improvements in patient cognition.
Application exceptions: Verification that this is a patient-function question does not verify an actual cognitive effect.
Referenced methods: Common conditions C06, E03, E09 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

Related sources

N12 · Can the cognitive scale, direction and measurement procedures for an eligible MCI result be verified?

Current findings: The question of validated cognitive-test change is fixed, but the specific scale in an eligible MCI trial is unverified. The value linking actual endpoint results is also null, so scale direction, measurement procedures and blinding could not be verified.
Verification status: Unverified
Materials actually read: The relevant locations and context of the preserved review summaries were read. External clinical abstracts and full texts were not read in this work.
Why unverified: No results or methods materials establish a directly eligible cognitive scale and assessment conditions.
Reason for missing information: Scale name, unit, direction, measurement schedule, assessor, blinding/repeat-testing handling and results are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Cognitive-scale specifications, assessment procedures, assessors/blinding and timepoint-specific results in a comparative MCI study.
Materials to obtain first: Cognitive-scale specifications, assessment procedures, assessors/blinding and timepoint-specific results in a comparative MCI study.
Further research: Specify a validated scale suitable for MCI and report results using consistent assessment schedules and procedures while addressing repeat-testing effects.
Remaining uncertainty: Scale name, unit, direction, measurement schedule, assessor, blinding/repeat-testing handling and results are unverified.
Conditions for verification: Link a validated scale’s name, unit, direction of improvement, assessment timing, assessors/blinding and handling of practice effects to its results.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid combining scores and measurement differences from different cognitive tests into one effect.
Application exceptions: When the specific scale is unverified, do not invent ADAS-Cog, CDR or another scale from adjacent research. Unknown blinding does not establish blinding failure.
Referenced methods: Common conditions C06, E03 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

Related sources

N13 · Can registration and the planned primary endpoint of an eligible MCI trial be compared with the actual report?

Current findings: Independent comparison of registration and the primary endpoint is unverified. The registered-primary-endpoint record and study/table-endpoint relationship have null values; clinical-trial registration numbers for both adjacent reports are also null.
Verification status: Unverified
Materials actually read: The relevant locations and context of the preserved review summaries were read. External clinical abstracts and full texts were not read in this work.
Why unverified: No materials were identified to compare registration and plans with cognitive results for a directly eligible trial. A null clinical-trial registration number is not evidence of nonregistration.
Reason for missing information: Actual registration identity, primary endpoint, analysis plan, consistency with reporting and reasons for changes are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Registration, protocol, analysis plan and original report of the relevant cognitive result for an eligible MCI trial.
Materials to obtain first: Registration, protocol, analysis plan and original report of the relevant cognitive result for an eligible MCI trial.
Further research: Specify cognitive endpoints, primary analyses and timepoints before actual data collection; link registration/plans to all results and report reasons for changes.
Remaining uncertainty: Actual registration identity, primary endpoint, analysis plan, consistency with reporting and reasons for changes are unverified.
Conditions for verification: Compare primary endpoints, timepoints and analyses in the registration/protocol and analysis plan with actual reports; verify reasons for changes.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid treating an unavailable plan as proof of selective reporting or absence of an eligible trial.
Application exceptions: Freezing this table’s conditions with knowledge of the current materials does not replace clinical-trial preregistration.
Referenced methods: Common conditions C06, C09, E06 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

Related sources S09 S26

N14 · Can the actual design, allocation and concealment of an eligible ordinary-B1–MCI comparison be verified?

Current findings: No directly eligible human result has been verified. Design records for the two adjacent studies are strings summarizing exclusion reasons, not actual MCI-trial allocation methods. The original bias axis also states that unknown methods must not be invented and labeled as defects.
Verification status: Unverified
Materials actually read: The relevant locations and context of the preserved review summaries were read. External clinical abstracts and full texts were not read in this work.
Why unverified: No methods materials establish actual design, allocation, concealment or baseline balance for a result on ordinary B1 alone in MCI.
Reason for missing information: Directly eligible design, allocation/concealment, baseline balance and relevant blinding information are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Methods materials on design, randomization/concealment, baseline characteristics by group and blinding for a directly eligible study.
Materials to obtain first: Methods materials on design, randomization/concealment, baseline characteristics by group and blinding for a directly eligible study.
Further research: Design a controlled study suited to the cognitive effect of interest and report allocation, concealment, baseline characteristics and measurement blinding. Do not assign a design from currently unverified materials.
Remaining uncertainty: Directly eligible design, allocation/concealment, baseline balance and relevant blinding information are unverified.
Conditions for verification: Link parallel/crossover/cluster and randomized/nonrandomized design, allocation/concealment and baseline balance to the selected cognitive result.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid claiming verified control of confounding in an MCI comparison based only on a trial title or the design of adjacent research.
Application exceptions: Unknown design does not justify marking crossover or cluster conditions not applicable. Retain any nonrandomized evidence with its design and limitations.
Referenced methods: Common conditions E01, E03, E04 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

Related sources S09 S26

N15 · Can actual analysis denominators, attrition and missing data for MCI cognitive results be verified?

Current findings: The actual analysis denominator for the relevant primary endpoint is unverified and its value is null. Both n fields are statements requiring only verified values from historical numerical records and prohibiting substitution of allocated participant counts. That separate file was not opened in this work, and the existing arithmetic-record list is empty.
Verification status: Unverified
Materials actually read: The relevant locations and context of the preserved review summaries were read. External clinical abstracts and full texts were not read in this work.
Why unverified: The current inputs do not establish actual analysis counts, flow or missing-data handling for a direct cognitive result. References to separate records were not used as numerical denominators.
Reason for missing information: Allocation/completion/analysis denominators, measurement losses, dropout reasons/handling and effect uncertainty are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Participant flow, numbers assessed/analyzed at each cognitive timepoint, dropout reasons and missing-data handling in direct MCI research.
Materials to obtain first: Participant flow, numbers assessed/analyzed at each cognitive timepoint, dropout reasons and missing-data handling in direct MCI research.
Further research: Disclose flow by group and analysis denominators by outcome; report reasons for missingness, handling and result sensitivity. Do not invent a universal minimum n.
Remaining uncertainty: Allocation/completion/analysis denominators, measurement losses, dropout reasons/handling and effect uncertainty are unverified.
Conditions for verification: Distinguish selection, allocation, completion, measurement and analysis denominators, and missingness reasons/handling; link these to the relevant cognitive result.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid substituting references to separate files or randomized participant counts for actual cognitive-analysis denominators.
Application exceptions: When an adjacent paper’s n field provides no number, do not infer a participant count or 0 dropouts.
Referenced methods: Common conditions C07, E04, H06 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

Related sources S09 S26

N16 · Can the definition and analysis of an actual between-group MCI effect be verified?

Current findings: Directly eligible MCI results and their analysis are unverified. The original effect-size review records only state that eligible observations were not verified and that required adjusted/crossover effects of interest were not replaced with unadjusted values.
Verification status: Unverified
Materials actually read: The relevant locations and context of the preserved review summaries were read. External clinical abstracts and full texts were not read in this work.
Why unverified: Actual between-group MCI estimates, analysis populations and models could not be verified. Calculation-attempt records were not used as actual results.
Reason for missing information: Effect of interest, analysis population, within-/between-group definitions, adjustment, design handling and results are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Effect-of-interest definition, analysis population, model, group results and between-group estimates for an eligible MCI comparison.
Materials to obtain first: Effect-of-interest definition, analysis population, model, group results and between-group estimates for an eligible MCI comparison.
Further research: Specify the effect of interest and primary analysis; report between-group differences at the same timepoint separately from within-group improvement. Include crossover/cluster handling required by the actual design.
Remaining uncertainty: Effect of interest, analysis population, within-/between-group definitions, adjustment, design handling and results are unverified.
Conditions for verification: Link assignment/adherence effects, ITT/PP, final values/change scores, between-/within-group definitions, adjustment models and design handling to actual results.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid transferring cognitive results from related research or within-group improvement to a between-group effect of ordinary B1 in MCI.
Application exceptions: Do not fill an unknown analysis population with ITT; the manuscript’s analysis-attempt records are not actual cognitive effects.
Referenced methods: Common conditions C06, E04 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

Related sources

N17 · Can direct cognitive-change effects, variability, CIs and an important difference be verified?

Current findings: The original record explicitly states that the effect estimate and an eligible effect interval for the exact claim could not be verified. Effects were not approximated by converting P statistics, and a specific MCI scale is also unverified.
Verification status: Unverified
Materials actually read: The relevant locations and context of the preserved review summaries were read. External clinical abstracts and full texts were not read in this work.
Why unverified: Materials establishing direct cognitive effects, variability/CIs and importance criteria are unavailable, preventing interpretation of magnitude, precision and importance.
Reason for missing information: Between-group effect, SD/SE, CI, denominator and evidence for scale-specific important differences are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Scale-specific between-group effects, variability types, denominators, CIs and evidence for clinical-importance criteria for an eligible MCI result.
Materials to obtain first: Scale-specific between-group effects, variability types, denominators, CIs and evidence for clinical-importance criteria for an eligible MCI result.
Further research: Report the main cognitive effect and CI and specify evidence for an important difference, separating uncertainty from clinical meaning. Do not determine sufficiency from significance or study count alone.
Remaining uncertainty: Between-group effect, SD/SE, CI, denominator and evidence for scale-specific important differences are unverified.
Conditions for verification: Distinguish actual scales, between-group effects, SD/SE, denominators and CIs; compare with an evidence-based important difference or record why interpretation is unavailable.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid writing an unknown effect as 0 or interpreting ? and null as numerical small-effect or low-precision values.
Application exceptions: Do not estimate new effects from P values or invent universal numerical minimums for duration, sample size, study count or importance.
Referenced methods: Common conditions C07, E05 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

Related sources

N18 · Was S09’s cognitive-trial summary separated from a direct effect of ordinary B1 in MCI?

Current findings: S09 is preserved as Gibson and colleagues’ 2020 cognitive trial of benfotiamine in early Alzheimer disease. The current summary records the molecular-form difference and does not adopt it as a direct ordinary-B1–MCI result.
Verification status: Verified
Materials actually read: The relevant locations and context of the preserved review summaries were read. External clinical abstracts and full texts were not read in this work.
Why unverified: The adjacent report’s identity, endpoint, exclusion reason and nontransfer to direct evidence were verified within the source’s scope.
Reason for missing information: S09 numerical results, CIs and denominators absent from the current summary, and direct ordinary-B1–MCI effects, remain separately unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Preserved bibliography, intervention, population/endpoint, exclusion role and result-summary locations for S09.
Materials to obtain first: Preserved bibliography, intervention, population/endpoint, exclusion role and result-summary locations for S09.
Further research: If ordinary B1 in MCI is newly studied, link benfotiamine/dementia findings only as hypothesis background and perform a separate direct comparison with matching intervention and population.
Remaining uncertainty: S09 numerical results, CIs and denominators absent from the current summary, and direct ordinary-B1–MCI effects, remain separately unverified.
Conditions for verification: Explain how S09’s benfotiamine/early-Alzheimer-disease endpoint differs from the current question; do not delete the adjacent report or count it as direct replication.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to preserve the existence of human cognitive trials without inheriting results from other molecular forms or diseases as the current effect.
Application exceptions: This source provides no numerical results, CIs or denominators for S09. No new assessment of the whole paper’s effect direction or precision is made here.
Referenced methods: Common conditions C04, C05, C06, C08, E07 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

Related sources S09

N19 · Was the negative ordinary-thiamine dementia result kept from becoming a conclusion of no effect in MCI?

Current findings: S26 is a cognitive trial of ordinary thiamine in Alzheimer dementia. The original body text mentions its negative result; because it is not an isolated MCI result, it was not transferred to MCI as no effect or repeated refutation.
Verification status: Verified
Materials actually read: The relevant locations and context of the preserved review summaries were read. External clinical abstracts and full texts were not read in this work.
Why unverified: The unfavorable adjacent finding, population difference and reason for nontransfer were preserved together. This verification neither establishes an MCI effect nor revalidates S26’s numerical results.
Reason for missing information: S26 statistical details and directly eligible MCI effects are unverified in the current inputs.
Required materials and conditions: S26 population/endpoint, ordinary-B1 identity, preserved results and original body-text locations addressing the negative result.
Materials to obtain first: S26 population/endpoint, ordinary-B1 identity, preserved results and original body-text locations addressing the negative result.
Further research: Obtain results by directly comparing ordinary B1 in MCI; interpret differences from dementia evidence separately by population and disease stage.
Remaining uncertainty: S26 statistical details and directly eligible MCI effects are unverified in the current inputs.
Conditions for verification: Preserve both S26’s established-Alzheimer-dementia population and the manuscript’s negative-result statement; do not transfer these to an MCI effect of 0, equivalence or repeated refutation.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to retain unfavorable adjacent findings while respecting applicability limits arising from differences in the actual question.
Application exceptions: The source provides no actual S26 numerical results, P values/CIs or denominators; do not invent statistical no-difference findings or effect sizes.
Referenced methods: Common conditions C04, C08, E07 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

Related sources S26

N20 · Were the benfotiamine paper’s identifier correction and both reports’ bibliographic links preserved accurately?

Current findings: The original correction identifies S09 as PMID 33074237 and DOI 10.3233/JAD-200896 and records that a potentially mislinked PMID was not adopted. Both reports’ bibliographic/publisher URLs were preserved unchanged; no external recheck was performed in this work.
Verification status: Verified
Materials actually read: The relevant locations and context of the preserved review summaries were read. External clinical abstracts and full texts were not read in this work.
Why unverified: The current manuscript’s identifier correction and actual bibliographic links were checked. This does not mean the original external paper’s identity was independently verified in this work.
Reason for missing information: Current publisher-material status, full text and any additional corrections or retractions were not rechecked.
Required materials and conditions: Exact original wording of current citation/evidence records and the PMID/DOI linkage correction.
Materials to obtain first: Exact original wording of current citation/evidence records and the PMID/DOI linkage correction.
Further research: When obtaining materials later, compare PMID, DOI, authors/year and intervention identity; preserve before/after identifiers and the grounds for any correction.
Remaining uncertainty: Current publisher-material status, full text and any additional corrections or retractions were not rechecked.
Conditions for verification: Link the original correction’s PMID/DOI to citation/evidence identity without labeling this as a current external identity check or full-text verification.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid mixing a potentially mislinked paper identifier with different effect evidence.
Application exceptions: Do not interpret a publisher URL’s existence or its /fullarticle path as successful full-text reading.
Referenced methods: Common conditions C02, C03, C09 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

Related sources S09 S26

N21 · Were the two adjacent reports kept from being counted as independent replications of direct MCI trials?

Current findings: The two adjacent reports are distinguished as Benfotiamine-earlyAD-2020 and Nolan-AD-1991 and excluded for intervention and population differences, respectively. The original record likewise did not count them as replication/refutation of the exact MCI claim. 2 is the cited-report count; unique direct-trial and participant counts are unverified.
Verification status: Verified
Materials actually read: The relevant locations and context of the preserved review summaries were read. External clinical abstracts and full texts were not read in this work.
Why unverified: The identities, exclusion roles and nonattribution to direct replication of both current reports were checked. No unique direct-trial count or effect of 0 was established.
Reason for missing information: Actual unique direct-trial and participant counts, and complete family relationships requiring comparison of registrations/full texts and related reports, are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Study identifiers, bibliography and roles for both reports, plus family-linkage materials for additional registrations or related reports.
Materials to obtain first: Study identifiers, bibliography and roles for both reports, plus family-linkage materials for additional registrations or related reports.
Further research: When collecting materials, link reports to unique trial families and manage follow-ups, repeat citations and subgroup analyses of the same trial as one family.
Remaining uncertainty: Actual unique direct-trial and participant counts, and complete family relationships requiring comparison of registrations/full texts and related reports, are unverified.
Conditions for verification: Link bibliographic/study identifiers and exclusion roles; distinguish report counts from unique directly eligible trial and participant counts.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid counting two different citations as 2 direct MCI replications or 2 independent refutations.
Application exceptions: Identifiers alone do not fully verify institutional or participant independence across studies. Leave undetermined direct-trial and participant counts null.
Referenced methods: Common conditions C02, E07 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

Related sources S09 S26

N22 · Were current local-summary reading and historical publisher-abstract access distinguished for each material?

Current findings: The entire preserved manuscript and exact quotations for each relevant row were read in this work. Historical access declarations for both reports are publisher abstracts. External abstracts and full texts were unattempted and unread in this work; individual access dates were left null because the original citation records lack them. The manuscript cut-off of 2026-09-15 was preserved separately.
Verification status: Verified
Materials actually read: The relevant locations and context of the preserved review summaries were read. External clinical abstracts and full texts were not read in this work.
Why unverified: The difference between actual current reading and historical abstract declarations was recorded by material. Historical self-checks are not reused as current clinical full-text reading or independent review.
Reason for missing information: Direct verification of current existence, availability, access and results of external abstracts/full texts was not performed.
Required materials and conditions: Exact locations, values and hashes in the preserved materials, original access levels and source locations for both reports, and material-specific reading records.
Materials to obtain first: Exact locations, values and hashes in the preserved materials, original access levels and source locations for both reports, and material-specific reading records.
Further research: If external materials are actually obtained later, separately record timing, access/acquisition/reading locations by material type and compare full-text results with the current summaries.
Remaining uncertainty: Direct verification of current existence, availability, access and results of external abstracts/full texts was not performed.
Conditions for verification: Separate actual reading of the current preserved manuscript summaries from both external abstracts/full texts being unattempted and unread; preserve historical publisher-abstract access, source locations and null individual dates.
Why this condition is needed: This display condition is required to avoid upgrading a link or historical abstract access to current full-text reading.
Application exceptions: Not attempted does not mean access failed. When a citation record lacks an individual access date, leave it null; do not copy the original review date into the access date.
Referenced methods: Common conditions C03, C09 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

Related sources S09 S26

N23 · Can the original search’s databases, strategies and selection scope be traced in the current inputs?

Current findings: The original search cut-off is 2026-09-15 and a historical-search-record path is recorded. The limitation that not every primary database worldwide was exhaustively searched, and the bounded conclusion that no directly eligible result was identified, are preserved. The separate historical search record was not opened here, so the actual complete search strategies and selection flow were not verified.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: The relevant locations and context of the preserved review summaries were read. External clinical abstracts and full texts were not read in this work.
Why unverified: The cut-off, log reference and bounded scope were verified, but actual databases, search strategies and selection flow cannot be reproduced from the current inputs alone.
Reason for missing information: Actual search sources, strategies and selection flow in the original log, and the subsequent current literature status, are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Actual search sources, strategies, timing, selection/exclusion flow and coverage of unpublished/registered materials and corrections in the historical search record.
Materials to obtain first: Actual search sources, strategies, timing, selection/exclusion flow and coverage of unpublished/registered materials and corrections in the historical search record.
Further research: When a subsequent update is authorized, reproducibly record question-specific search sources, strategies, selection and links to registered/unpublished materials; state whether the search was exhaustive.
Remaining uncertainty: Actual search sources, strategies and selection flow in the original log, and the subsequent current literature status, are unverified.
Conditions for verification: Preserve the evidence cut-off and bounded search conclusion; distinguish whether actual search strategies, databases and exclusion flow have been obtained.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid extending absence statements in the preserved summaries to absence from all current literature.
Application exceptions: No new clinical search is performed here, and the separate historical-search-record path is not claimed to have been opened. Incomplete searching is not displayed as 0 studies.
Referenced methods: Common conditions C09, E06 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

Related sources

N24 · Were the original ?, absent score, unused axes and bounded no-eligible-human-result marker preserved unchanged?

Current findings: The original verdict is ? with no score; replication, independence, effect, bias and precision other than B/P are null. The no-eligible-human-result marker is true, human-research existence is null, and eligible-human-result identification is false. The original interpretation is limited to failure to identify a directly eligible result in the documented search, distinct from no effect or worldwide absence.
Verification status: Verified
Materials actually read: The relevant locations and context of the preserved review summaries were read. External clinical abstracts and full texts were not read in this work.
Why unverified: Original types, values and the bounded interpretation were preserved precisely without conversion into a new clinical score, an effect of 0 or equivalence.
Reason for missing information: Direct effects and the worldwide existence of human research not established by the original status remain separately unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Exact wording of the original grade, score, assessment axes, human-research existence and eligible-result flags, calculation records and bounded unverified interpretation.
Materials to obtain first: Exact wording of the original grade, score, assessment axes, human-research existence and eligible-result flags, calculation records and bounded unverified interpretation.
Further research: If eligible materials are verified later, record previous status, dates and evidence separately from the new decision event. Do not derive clinical scores from row counts or verification rates in this table.
Remaining uncertainty: Direct effects and the worldwide existence of human research not established by the original status remain separately unverified.
Conditions for verification: Preserve the original grade/score, B/P, null unused axes, false and empty arrays, and the bounded no-eligible-human-result meaning; do not convert these into new efficacy/safety scores or an effect of 0.
Why this condition is needed: This meaning boundary is required to prevent reading the original ? as total absence of human research, no effect or E0/RX/F.
Application exceptions: The original absent score and null unused axes are not 0. Passing current structural checks is separate from assessing clinical efficacy.
Referenced methods: Common conditions C01, C08, C09, E05 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

Related sources

N25 · Can research funding, product provision and conflicts of interest for direct MCI evidence be verified?

Current findings: Funding fields for both adjacent reports are strings stating that funding is unverified or not used for this page’s grade. The original independence axis is null; independence was not assigned to a question without a directly eligible result.
Verification status: Unverified
Materials actually read: The relevant locations and context of the preserved review summaries were read. External clinical abstracts and full texts were not read in this work.
Why unverified: No materials establish actual funding, provision, conflicts of interest or independent replication for direct MCI results.
Reason for missing information: Research funding, product provision, author/institution relationships, declared interests and independence of direct evidence are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Funding, conflicts of interest, product provision, author/institution materials and related trial-family records for direct MCI reports.
Materials to obtain first: Funding, conflicts of interest, product provision, author/institution materials and related trial-family records for direct MCI reports.
Further research: Future research should disclose funding, product provision and author relationships; link families of replication studies and conflicts separately for interpretation.
Remaining uncertainty: Research funding, product provision, author/institution relationships, declared interests and independence of direct evidence are unverified.
Conditions for verification: Verify actual funding, product provision, author employment/patents, declared interests and study families; do not interpret unknown information as independent funding.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid treating unknown funding in adjacent reports or the original null independence axis as evidence of independent funding or replication.
Application exceptions: Do not automatically exclude evidence because of conflicts or infer absence of bias because no conflict is reported. Do not assign a new independence axis when direct results are unavailable.
Referenced methods: Common conditions C10, C02 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

Related sources S09 S26

N26 · Can adverse-event definitions, collection and denominators be verified under the same ordinary-B1–MCI exposure?

Current findings: Actual dose, duration and safety denominators for the exact MCI question are unverified. The adverse-event value is null; the source explicitly avoids presenting tolerability from other molecular forms or dementia trials as equivalent.
Verification status: Unverified
Materials actually read: The relevant locations and context of the preserved review summaries were read. External clinical abstracts and full texts were not read in this work.
Why unverified: Actual event collection, denominators and event values in the same population/exposure could not be verified. Unknown information is not evidence of safety or 0 adverse events.
Reason for missing information: Event definitions, collection methods, severity, affected-person/event counts, exposure denominators, duration and discontinuations are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Adverse-event definitions, collection methods, events/exposure denominators by group, severity and discontinuations in ordinary-B1 MCI research.
Materials to obtain first: Adverse-event definitions, collection methods, events/exposure denominators by group, severity and discontinuations in ordinary-B1 MCI research.
Further research: Systematically collect harms in the same population/exposure separately from efficacy outcomes; disclose affected-person counts, event counts, denominators and duration together.
Remaining uncertainty: Event definitions, collection methods, severity, affected-person/event counts, exposure denominators, duration and discontinuations are unverified.
Conditions for verification: Link actual dose, duration, event definitions/severity, collection methods, affected-person/event counts and exposure denominators.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid turning the existence of a cognitive trial or summary into a claim of safety or 0 adverse events.
Application exceptions: Do not transfer tolerability from other molecular forms or dementia trials as equivalent. Do not calculate incidence without denominators.
Referenced methods: Common conditions E10, H01, H04, H09, C07 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

Related sources

N27 · Can exposure timing, comparisons and follow-up losses for harms be verified in the same MCI materials?

Current findings: Duration and safety denominators for direct MCI exposure are unverified, and the current summary contains no verified materials on harm timelines, comparisons or follow-up losses in the same population. Tolerability from other molecular forms or dementia was not substituted.
Verification status: Unverified
Materials actually read: The relevant locations and context of the preserved review summaries were read. External clinical abstracts and full texts were not read in this work.
Why unverified: Materials linking event timing, comparisons and follow-up scope under the same population/exposure are unavailable, preventing a judgment about risk or causality.
Reason for missing information: Exposure/onset/recovery, discontinuation/re-exposure, between-group event comparisons, detection differences and long-term follow-up/losses are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Event timelines, discontinuation/recovery, group comparisons, follow-up losses and completeness of event disclosure under the same ordinary-B1 MCI exposure.
Materials to obtain first: Event timelines, discontinuation/recovery, group comparisons, follow-up losses and completeness of event disclosure under the same ordinary-B1 MCI exposure.
Further research: Use the same safety follow-up procedures in both groups; collect exposure, onset/recovery and attrition, and report limitations of comparative risk.
Remaining uncertainty: Exposure/onset/recovery, discontinuation/re-exposure, between-group event comparisons, detection differences and long-term follow-up/losses are unverified.
Conditions for verification: Link exposure start/stop, event onset/recovery, follow-up, comparators and attrition/detection by group; temporal sequence alone does not establish causality.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid upgrading harms unseen in short or incomplete summaries to safety, causality or total incidence.
Application exceptions: Do not infer improvement after discontinuation or re-exposure when these are absent. Unverified information also does not mean a harm event occurred.
Referenced methods: Common conditions H02, H03, H06, H08, H09, E10 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

Related sources

N28 · Was drug-interaction information for ordinary B1 in MCI sufficiently verified?

Current findings: The original record explicitly states that no separate comprehensive search of all drug interactions was performed. Actual group-specific concomitant-vitamin details and safety information for the exact MCI exposure are also unverified.
Verification status: Unverified
Materials actually read: The relevant locations and context of the preserved review summaries were read. External clinical abstracts and full texts were not read in this work.
Why unverified: No separate search and unknown actual concomitant-treatment details cannot be converted into safety or absence of interactions.
Reason for missing information: Actual concomitant medicines/exposure, direct evidence of specific interactions and comprehensive verification coverage are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Actual concomitant medicines, dose, timing and materials/search coverage and results for specific interactions.
Materials to obtain first: Actual concomitant medicines, dose, timing and materials/search coverage and results for specific interactions.
Further research: Subsequent safety assessments should record actual concomitant medicines and review suitable exposure/outcome materials for each specified interaction question.
Remaining uncertainty: Actual concomitant medicines/exposure, direct evidence of specific interactions and comprehensive verification coverage are unverified.
Conditions for verification: Distinguish drug-interaction search/verification coverage from actual concomitant exposure; do not interpret absence of a separate search as absence of interactions.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid extending the efficacy manuscript’s scope into a guarantee of individual safety with all medicines.
Application exceptions: Failure to perform a comprehensive search alone establishes neither presence nor absence of interactions. Do not create individual dosing instructions.
Referenced methods: Common conditions C09, E10, H05, H08 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

Related sources

N29 · Does the current table claim an optimal dose, persistence after discontinuation or long-term cognitive effects?

Current findings: The current table addresses only comparative cognitive change with ordinary B1 in MCI. With direct dose, duration and effect unverified, it makes no claim about optimal dose, persistence after discontinuation or long-term efficacy/safety.
Verification status: Not applicable
Materials actually read: The relevant locations and context of the preserved review summaries were read. External clinical abstracts and full texts were not read in this work.
Why unverified: Because optimal-dose and long-term-maintenance extensions are not added to the current original claim, verification of those extensions is not required here.
Reason for missing information: Direct results for extension questions are unverified. Not applicable does not mean no long-term effect.
Required materials and conditions: Direct dose comparisons, discontinuation/long-term follow-up and exposure/timepoint-specific results if an extension question is newly addressed.
Materials to obtain first: Direct dose comparisons, discontinuation/long-term follow-up and exposure/timepoint-specific results if an extension question is newly addressed.
Further research: If an extension is needed, separately plan dose comparisons and discontinuation/long-term follow-up; report direct estimates and safety information.
Remaining uncertainty: Direct results for extension questions are unverified. Not applicable does not mean no long-term effect.
Conditions for verification: Separate the fixed comparative cognitive-change question from optimal-dose or long-term-maintenance extensions, and do not claim those extensions.
Why this condition is needed: This supplementary boundary prevents extending an unverified main effect to a specific regimen or long-term effect.
Application exceptions: Do not require all dose and long-term studies for the current narrow cognitive-change question. Original dose/duration uncertainty remains in other rows.
Referenced methods: Common conditions E08, H08 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

Related sources

N30 · Is cognitive-test change extended to dementia prevention, quality of life or mortality effects?

Current findings: The selected question concerns change on validated cognitive tests; dementia incidence, quality of life and mortality were not adopted as independent endpoints. Established-Alzheimer-dementia results are likewise not transferred as MCI effects.
Verification status: Not applicable
Materials actually read: The relevant locations and context of the preserved review summaries were read. External clinical abstracts and full texts were not read in this work.
Why unverified: Because no separate clinical-event extension is claimed, event results are not required for the current cognitive-change table.
Reason for missing information: Direct dementia-prevention, quality-of-life and survival results were not verified within the current question.
Required materials and conditions: Population, denominators, duration and comparative results directly measuring dementia incidence/clinical function, quality of life or survival if an extension question is addressed.
Materials to obtain first: Population, denominators, duration and comparative results directly measuring dementia incidence/clinical function, quality of life or survival if an extension question is addressed.
Further research: To evaluate clinical events or quality of life, plan separate research with clear event definitions and appropriate follow-up/denominators, and report independently of cognitive scores.
Remaining uncertainty: Direct dementia-prevention, quality-of-life and survival results were not verified within the current question.
Conditions for verification: Separate cognitive-test change itself from clinical events, quality of life and survival; do not use the current results as evidence for those separate questions.
Why this condition is needed: This condition avoids automatically extending a cognitive-test question to dementia prevention or every improvement in patients’ lives.
Application exceptions: Do not require an event trial for a numerical-change question. Unverified direct cognitive effects do not establish an event effect of 0.
Referenced methods: Common conditions C06, E09 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

Related sources

N31 · Can presence or absence of interference be judged within the original assay-interference verification scope?

Current findings: The original assay-interference value is null and its information state is no separate search performed. The statement that no separate systematic search was performed and that this must not be read as absence of interference was preserved. The selected endpoint is cognitive-test change, distinct from blood vitamers.
Verification status: Unverified
Materials actually read: The relevant locations and context of the preserved review summaries were read. External clinical abstracts and full texts were not read in this work.
Why unverified: No separately verified interference materials support a judgment about presence or absence. This is neither a cognitive-effect verdict nor a finding of measurement failure.
Reason for missing information: Interference materials for specific assays/exposures and separate verification coverage are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Materials on specific assays, actual B1 exposure and interference/errors, plus separate search/verification coverage.
Materials to obtain first: Materials on specific assays, actual B1 exposure and interference/errors, plus separate search/verification coverage.
Further research: For a subsequent question, specify the assay actually used, compare exposure and sampling/assessment timing with assay principles, and perform the necessary validation.
Remaining uncertainty: Interference materials for specific assays/exposures and separate verification coverage are unverified.
Conditions for verification: Do not convert absence of a separate assay-interference search into absence of interference; limit relevance to cognitive assessment or separate biochemical tests to the verified scope.
Why this condition is needed: This supplementary condition avoids extending an unsearched interference question to error-free assessment tools or biochemical-assay safety.
Application exceptions: The current cognitive-change question does not itself claim assay interference. Absence of a separate search does not establish that cognitive-trial measurement errors occurred either.
Referenced methods: Common conditions C06, C09, E03 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

Related sources

N32 · Were the original update conditions and the separate records not opened here clearly documented?

Current findings: New eligible evidence, full-text/registration results, numerical/unit changes, source corrections and retractions were preserved as subsequent update triggers. Separate historical search records, historical verification reports, historical numerical records, the calculator, earlier verdict 162 and examples were not opened here. The original verdict remains a publishable record of current uncertainty.
Verification status: Verified
Materials actually read: The relevant locations and context of the preserved review summaries were read. External clinical abstracts and full texts were not read in this work.
Why unverified: The original update policy was distinguished from the actual unread-reference scope. Acquisition of subsequent materials or public deployment is not claimed to have been completed.
Reason for missing information: The current contents, existence and additional results of each referenced file, and the latest external status, were not checked within this scope.
Required materials and conditions: Original update policy, editorial references and identities, dates and scope of subsequent materials/corrections, with before/after records.
Materials to obtain first: Original update policy, editorial references and identities, dates and scope of subsequent materials/corrections, with before/after records.
Further research: In later updates, preserve actual new materials, dates and reading levels together with previous values and change reasons; separately review linked rows and whether conditions need revision.
Remaining uncertainty: The current contents, existence and additional results of each referenced file, and the latest external status, were not checked within this scope.
Conditions for verification: Distinguish new-evidence, full-text/registration acquisition, numerical/identity correction and retraction events from manuscript/condition revisions; do not upgrade unread referenced files into the actual reading scope.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid presenting reference paths and historical self-checks as current reinvestigation or automatic verification.
Application exceptions: Only reference strings for historical search records, historical numerical records, the calculator, earlier 162 and supporting examples were read; their individual sources were not opened. The possibility of an update does not establish that a result currently exists.
Referenced methods: Common conditions C03, C09, E06 were individually adapted to the ordinary-B1-alone MCI question. These are case-specific conditions referencing preserved methodological principles, not official methodological certification.

Related sources