{ "schema_version": "chamgap-public-evidence-check-1.0", "public_id": "v3087-main", "verdict_number": "3087", "title": "Ordinary thiamine (vitamin B1) × Improvement of cognition in mild cognitive impairment", "view_version": "1.0", "view_created_date": "2026-10-31", "criteria_version": "NGM-3087-ORDINARY-B1-MCI-1.0", "criteria_date": "2026-10-05", "review_date": "2026-10-05", "legacy_evidence_date": "2026-09-15", "review_scope": { "materials_read": "Preserved Korean and English review summaries, case-specific conditions and application records, and preserved methodological principles", "clinical_papers_directly_read": false, "new_clinical_search": false, "limitation": "No new external clinical abstracts, full texts, registrations or analysis plans were read. Historical abstract access is distinguished from reading the preserved summaries now. Failure to identify a directly eligible result does not establish worldwide absence of research or absence of an effect.", "date_meaning": "This is the date the preserved materials were reviewed, not the date of a new search of the clinical literature." }, "claim_context": { "population": "Adults with mild cognitive impairment (MCI); established Alzheimer dementia and confirmed B1-deficiency encephalopathy excluded", "intervention": "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", "endpoint": "Change on a validated cognitive test; the specific scale in an eligible MCI trial is unverified", "duration": "Duration of an eligible MCI trial unverified", "excluded_extensions": [ "Benfotiamine", "Established Alzheimer dementia", "Confirmed B1-deficiency encephalopathy", "Effects of ingredient combinations", "Dementia prevention, survival and optimal dose" ] }, "requirements": [ { "item_id": "N01", "question_type": "Independent claim", "question": "Are this table’s question about ordinary B1 alone and cognitive change in MCI, and its exclusions, clear?", "needed": "A boundary record linking the current claim’s wording, question identity, population, endpoint and comparison.", "role": "Required", "role_reason": "This boundary is required to avoid combining cognitive improvement in MCI and dementia treatment into one effect status.", "application_exception": "Unverified scales, doses or durations do not justify inventing combinations as new claims.", "criterion": "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.", "basis": "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.", "condition_origin": "Case-specific conditions developed with knowledge of the preserved manuscript; neither blinded nor clinical preregistration", "proposed_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.", "current_reports": [], "existence": "Linked locations in the preserved manuscript were checked. The existence of direct ordinary-B1–MCI materials remains separately unverified.", "acquired_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.", "observation": "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.", "condition_status": "Verified", "status_reason": "The selected question and exclusions are explicit in the preserved source. This verification does not establish a direct clinical effect.", "missingness": "Specific eligible-trial conditions remain unverified in the individual rows below.", "uncertainty": "Specific eligible-trial conditions remain unverified in the individual rows below.", "review_date": "2026-10-05", "reading_status": "Original papers unread · Preserved summaries read", "additional_material": "A boundary record linking the current claim’s wording, question identity, population, endpoint and comparison." }, { "item_id": "N02", "question_type": "MCI population", "question": "Can MCI diagnosis, selection and baseline cognition be verified for an actual comparative result on ordinary B1?", "needed": "Eligibility criteria, diagnostic procedures, baseline characteristics and isolated MCI results from an eligible MCI trial.", "role": "Required", "role_reason": "Relabeling an established Alzheimer disease population as MCI because both concern cognition would misapply the population.", "application_exception": "Retain mixed diagnostic populations and examine whether separate MCI results exist. Unverified information does not mean that there is no effect in MCI.", "criterion": "Verify clinical MCI diagnostic criteria, age, baseline cognition, eligibility and MCI-only results; distinguish established dementia and deficiency encephalopathy.", "basis": "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.", "condition_origin": "Case-specific conditions developed with knowledge of the preserved manuscript; neither blinded nor clinical preregistration", "proposed_research": "Report population flow and results together in a comparative study that clearly selects clinical MCI and records baseline cognition and deficiency status.", "current_reports": [ "S26" ], "existence": "Linked locations in the preserved manuscript were checked. The existence of direct ordinary-B1–MCI materials remains separately unverified.", "acquired_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.", "observation": "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.", "condition_status": "Unverified", "status_reason": "The question’s population is fixed, but actual diagnosis, selection and baseline characteristics for an eligible MCI result have not been verified.", "missingness": "Diagnostic criteria, composition, selection and isolated results for an eligible MCI population are unverified.", "uncertainty": "Diagnostic criteria, composition, selection and isolated results for an eligible MCI population are unverified.", "review_date": "2026-10-05", "reading_status": "Original papers unread · Preserved summaries read", "additional_material": "Eligibility criteria, diagnostic procedures, baseline characteristics and isolated MCI results from an eligible MCI trial." }, { "item_id": "N03", "question_type": "Distinguishing molecular forms", "question": "Was benfotiamine distinguished from direct MCI evidence for ordinary thiamine?", "needed": "Current source locations supporting S09’s intervention identity and its distinction from ordinary B1.", "role": "Required", "role_reason": "This is required to avoid transferring results from a different molecular form to ordinary B1 simply because it is a related search term.", "application_exception": "This exclusion neither denies benfotiamine efficacy nor establishes equivalence among all B1 derivatives.", "criterion": "Distinguish the original record that S09 used benfotiamine from ordinary thiamine; do not use its cognitive results as the current effect of B1 alone.", "basis": "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.", "condition_origin": "Case-specific conditions developed with knowledge of the preserved manuscript; neither blinded nor clinical preregistration", "proposed_research": "A future comparison of ordinary B1 and benfotiamine would need separately specified molecular interventions and direct comparative results in the same population.", "current_reports": [ "S09" ], "existence": "Linked locations in the preserved manuscript were checked. The existence of direct ordinary-B1–MCI materials remains separately unverified.", "acquired_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.", "observation": "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.", "condition_status": "Verified", "status_reason": "The preserved source explicitly states the intervention identity and exclusion reason, confirming the boundary for attributing direct evidence.", "missingness": "The identity of an actual eligible ordinary-B1 intervention in MCI remains separately unverified.", "uncertainty": "The identity of an actual eligible ordinary-B1 intervention in MCI remains separately unverified.", "review_date": "2026-10-05", "reading_status": "Original papers unread · Preserved summaries read", "additional_material": "Current source locations supporting S09’s intervention identity and its distinction from ordinary B1." }, { "item_id": "N04", "question_type": "Formulation and route", "question": "Can the actual ordinary-B1 salt, formulation and route in an eligible MCI result be verified?", "needed": "Treatment composition, salt/formulation, product specifications, actual administration route and the original report for a comparative ordinary-thiamine MCI study.", "role": "Required", "role_reason": "This is needed to avoid treating the question’s oral route as verification of an actual trial route.", "application_exception": "Do not infer hydrochloride from the name ordinary thiamine or transfer results from another route to oral administration.", "criterion": "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.", "basis": "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.", "condition_origin": "Case-specific conditions developed with knowledge of the preserved manuscript; neither blinded nor clinical preregistration", "proposed_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.", "current_reports": [], "existence": "Linked locations in the preserved manuscript were checked. The existence of direct ordinary-B1–MCI materials remains separately unverified.", "acquired_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.", "observation": "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.", "condition_status": "Unverified", "status_reason": "Once the question’s identity is distinguished from actual observations, there are no linked materials establishing an actual eligible preparation or route.", "missingness": "Actual ingredient, salt, formulation, product, administration route and linked sources for an eligible MCI result are unverified.", "uncertainty": "Actual ingredient, salt, formulation, product, administration route and linked sources for an eligible MCI result are unverified.", "review_date": "2026-10-05", "reading_status": "Original papers unread · Preserved summaries read", "additional_material": "Treatment composition, salt/formulation, product specifications, actual administration route and the original report for a comparative ordinary-thiamine MCI study." }, { "item_id": "N05", "question_type": "Dose and adherence", "question": "Can the actual ordinary-B1 dose and adherence in MCI be verified?", "needed": "Dose, frequency, actual exposure, adherence and changes or discontinuations in an eligible MCI trial.", "role": "Required", "role_reason": "This condition is needed to attribute cognitive results to actual exposure without substituting doses from other trials.", "application_exception": "Missing adherence information does not prove nonadherence. This table provides no individual dosing instructions.", "criterion": "Verify nominal dose, frequency, actual use, adherence and changes; do not copy doses from other molecular forms or dementia trials into MCI.", "basis": "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.", "condition_origin": "Case-specific conditions developed with knowledge of the preserved manuscript; neither blinded nor clinical preregistration", "proposed_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.", "current_reports": [], "existence": "Linked locations in the preserved manuscript were checked. The existence of direct ordinary-B1–MCI materials remains separately unverified.", "acquired_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.", "observation": "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.", "condition_status": "Unverified", "status_reason": "Directly eligible doses and actual use or adherence records could not be verified from the preserved inputs.", "missingness": "Dose, frequency, adherence and changes or discontinuations for single-ingredient ordinary B1 are unverified.", "uncertainty": "Dose, frequency, adherence and changes or discontinuations for single-ingredient ordinary B1 are unverified.", "review_date": "2026-10-05", "reading_status": "Original papers unread · Preserved summaries read", "additional_material": "Dose, frequency, actual exposure, adherence and changes or discontinuations in an eligible MCI trial." }, { "item_id": "N06", "question_type": "Duration and timing", "question": "Can actual MCI treatment duration and cognitive-assessment timing be verified?", "needed": "Treatment, discontinuation and cognitive-assessment schedules and outcome-specific timepoints from an eligible MCI trial.", "role": "Required", "role_reason": "This is needed to avoid using the duration of related dementia research as the observation window for the current MCI cognitive-change question.", "application_exception": "Do not prescribe a universal numerical minimum treatment duration or long-term maintenance period.", "criterion": "Link treatment start and end, assessments and follow-up to the relevant cognitive result; do not interpret unknown duration as a long-term effect.", "basis": "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.", "condition_origin": "Case-specific conditions developed with knowledge of the preserved manuscript; neither blinded nor clinical preregistration", "proposed_research": "Plan cognitive-assessment schedules separately from treatment-exposure duration, and report outcomes and attrition at the relevant timepoints.", "current_reports": [], "existence": "Linked locations in the preserved manuscript were checked. The existence of direct ordinary-B1–MCI materials remains separately unverified.", "acquired_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.", "observation": "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.", "condition_status": "Unverified", "status_reason": "No materials were identified linking administration and measurement periods for a directly eligible result.", "missingness": "Actual treatment, assessment, discontinuation and follow-up schedules are unverified.", "uncertainty": "Actual treatment, assessment, discontinuation and follow-up schedules are unverified.", "review_date": "2026-10-05", "reading_status": "Original papers unread · Preserved summaries read", "additional_material": "Treatment, discontinuation and cognitive-assessment schedules and outcome-specific timepoints from an eligible MCI trial." }, { "item_id": "N07", "question_type": "Baseline B1 status", "question": "Can baseline B1 status and the method for diagnosing deficiency in the MCI population be verified?", "needed": "Baseline B1-status tables, testing/deficiency definitions, exclusion of deficiency encephalopathy and relevant subgroup results for an eligible MCI population.", "role": "Required", "role_reason": "This condition avoids converting responses to treatment of confirmed deficiency into supplementation efficacy in MCI with unknown deficiency status.", "application_exception": "Do not describe nutritional status as normal when deficiency tests are missing. Do not create new effect subgroups based on current deficiency status.", "criterion": "Verify nutritional status, deficiency definitions and baseline B1 values; distinguish treatment results for confirmed deficiency encephalopathy from cognitive effects in general MCI.", "basis": "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.", "condition_origin": "Case-specific conditions developed with knowledge of the preserved manuscript; neither blinded nor clinical preregistration", "proposed_research": "Measure baseline nutritional status and prespecify hypotheses about effect modification by deficiency, reporting these separately from the main effect.", "current_reports": [], "existence": "Linked locations in the preserved manuscript were checked. The existence of direct ordinary-B1–MCI materials remains separately unverified.", "acquired_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.", "observation": "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.", "condition_status": "Unverified", "status_reason": "An explicit exclusion boundary does not verify actual baseline B1 status or its assessment method in an eligible population.", "missingness": "Baseline tests, deficiency definitions, exclusion procedures and results separated by baseline status are unverified.", "uncertainty": "Baseline tests, deficiency definitions, exclusion procedures and results separated by baseline status are unverified.", "review_date": "2026-10-05", "reading_status": "Original papers unread · Preserved summaries read", "additional_material": "Baseline B1-status tables, testing/deficiency definitions, exclusion of deficiency encephalopathy and relevant subgroup results for an eligible MCI population." }, { "item_id": "N08", "question_type": "Diet and supplements", "question": "Can total dietary intake and other supplement exposure in each group be verified?", "needed": "Dietary B1, supplement composition, intake, exposure changes and their analytical handling by group.", "role": "Required", "role_reason": "Even when asking about adding a single ingredient, differences in background nutritional exposure matter for interpreting its contribution.", "application_exception": "Do not convert unverified total intake into 0 intake or absence of all supplement use.", "criterion": "Verify total B1 exposure and group distributions or changes in diet and supplements; do not attribute other nutritional differences to ordinary B1 alone.", "basis": "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.", "condition_origin": "Case-specific conditions developed with knowledge of the preserved manuscript; neither blinded nor clinical preregistration", "proposed_research": "Record diet and supplement use in both groups using the same methods; explicitly address differences and changes in background exposure in the analysis.", "current_reports": [], "existence": "Linked locations in the preserved manuscript were checked. The existence of direct ordinary-B1–MCI materials remains separately unverified.", "acquired_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.", "observation": "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.", "condition_status": "Unverified", "status_reason": "No actual materials establish the distribution or changes in background exposure for a directly eligible comparison.", "missingness": "Total exposure to dietary B1 and other supplements, and changes by group, are unverified.", "uncertainty": "Total exposure to dietary B1 and other supplements, and changes by group, are unverified.", "review_date": "2026-10-05", "reading_status": "Original papers unread · Preserved summaries read", "additional_material": "Dietary B1, supplement composition, intake, exposure changes and their analytical handling by group." }, { "item_id": "N09", "question_type": "Actual comparator", "question": "Can an actual comparator differing only in ordinary B1 be verified for an eligible MCI result?", "needed": "Treatment/control composition, shared usual care, background treatment by group and actual results for an eligible MCI comparison.", "role": "Required", "role_reason": "This is needed to avoid presenting the comparison planned in the question as a comparison that was actually performed.", "application_exception": "Absence of placebo alone does not automatically invalidate a result; record the actual comparison and confounding limitations.", "criterion": "Verify the actual placebo, no-addition or identical-usual-care comparator and explain whether ordinary B1 is the only difference between groups.", "basis": "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.", "condition_origin": "Case-specific conditions developed with knowledge of the preserved manuscript; neither blinded nor clinical preregistration", "proposed_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.", "current_reports": [], "existence": "Linked locations in the preserved manuscript were checked. The existence of direct ordinary-B1–MCI materials remains separately unverified.", "acquired_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.", "observation": "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.", "condition_status": "Unverified", "status_reason": "The question defines a comparator, but actual group treatments and usual care for an eligible result could not be verified.", "missingness": "Actual comparator composition and materials separating the between-group contribution of B1 alone are unverified.", "uncertainty": "Actual comparator composition and materials separating the between-group contribution of B1 alone are unverified.", "review_date": "2026-10-05", "reading_status": "Original papers unread · Preserved summaries read", "additional_material": "Treatment/control composition, shared usual care, background treatment by group and actual results for an eligible MCI comparison." }, { "item_id": "N10", "question_type": "Concomitant and rescue treatment", "question": "Can concomitant medicines, rescue treatment and treatment changes that may affect cognition be verified by group?", "needed": "Concomitant medicines and vitamins, rescue treatment, adherence/treatment changes and their analytical handling for an eligible MCI result.", "role": "Required", "role_reason": "This is needed to protect attribution to the selected ingredient without assuming shared treatment in the usual-care question.", "application_exception": "Unknown concomitant details do not mean there was no concomitant treatment; not every change must be identical across groups.", "criterion": "Verify concomitant vitamins, cognitive-disease treatment, rescue treatment and discontinuations or changes; distinguish their contribution from that of ordinary B1.", "basis": "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.", "condition_origin": "Case-specific conditions developed with knowledge of the preserved manuscript; neither blinded nor clinical preregistration", "proposed_research": "Collect concomitant and rescue treatments in both groups and prespecify how assignment effects and actual-use effects will be distinguished.", "current_reports": [], "existence": "Linked locations in the preserved manuscript were checked. The existence of direct ordinary-B1–MCI materials remains separately unverified.", "acquired_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.", "observation": "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.", "condition_status": "Unverified", "status_reason": "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.", "missingness": "Concomitant medicines, rescue treatment, treatment changes and handling of the effect of interest by group are unverified.", "uncertainty": "Concomitant medicines, rescue treatment, treatment changes and handling of the effect of interest by group are unverified.", "review_date": "2026-10-05", "reading_status": "Original papers unread · Preserved summaries read", "additional_material": "Concomitant medicines and vitamins, rescue treatment, adherence/treatment changes and their analytical handling for an eligible MCI result." }, { "item_id": "N11", "question_type": "Patient-function endpoint", "question": "Was the cognitive-function question distinguished from blood vitamers and mechanistic markers?", "needed": "Current source and nutritional-extraction records showing the distinction between the question’s endpoint and biochemical markers.", "role": "Required", "role_reason": "This boundary prevents automatically extending improvements in blood vitamers to improvements in patient cognition.", "application_exception": "Verification that this is a patient-function question does not verify an actual cognitive effect.", "criterion": "Retain the selected endpoint as change on a patient’s cognitive test; do not substitute biochemical, mechanistic or advertising statements for its direct effect.", "basis": "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.", "condition_origin": "Case-specific conditions developed with knowledge of the preserved manuscript; neither blinded nor clinical preregistration", "proposed_research": "Even if future work collects mechanistic and biochemical markers, report cognitive-test results as a separate endpoint and analyze relationships between markers separately.", "current_reports": [], "existence": "Linked locations in the preserved manuscript were checked. The existence of direct ordinary-B1–MCI materials remains separately unverified.", "acquired_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.", "observation": "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.", "condition_status": "Verified", "status_reason": "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.", "missingness": "Eligible cognitive-test results remain separately unverified.", "uncertainty": "Eligible cognitive-test results remain separately unverified.", "review_date": "2026-10-05", "reading_status": "Original papers unread · Preserved summaries read", "additional_material": "Current source and nutritional-extraction records showing the distinction between the question’s endpoint and biochemical markers." }, { "item_id": "N12", "question_type": "Scale and measurement", "question": "Can the cognitive scale, direction and measurement procedures for an eligible MCI result be verified?", "needed": "Cognitive-scale specifications, assessment procedures, assessors/blinding and timepoint-specific results in a comparative MCI study.", "role": "Required", "role_reason": "This is needed to avoid combining scores and measurement differences from different cognitive tests into one effect.", "application_exception": "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.", "criterion": "Link a validated scale’s name, unit, direction of improvement, assessment timing, assessors/blinding and handling of practice effects to its results.", "basis": "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.", "condition_origin": "Case-specific conditions developed with knowledge of the preserved manuscript; neither blinded nor clinical preregistration", "proposed_research": "Specify a validated scale suitable for MCI and report results using consistent assessment schedules and procedures while addressing repeat-testing effects.", "current_reports": [], "existence": "Linked locations in the preserved manuscript were checked. The existence of direct ordinary-B1–MCI materials remains separately unverified.", "acquired_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.", "observation": "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.", "condition_status": "Unverified", "status_reason": "No results or methods materials establish a directly eligible cognitive scale and assessment conditions.", "missingness": "Scale name, unit, direction, measurement schedule, assessor, blinding/repeat-testing handling and results are unverified.", "uncertainty": "Scale name, unit, direction, measurement schedule, assessor, blinding/repeat-testing handling and results are unverified.", "review_date": "2026-10-05", "reading_status": "Original papers unread · Preserved summaries read", "additional_material": "Cognitive-scale specifications, assessment procedures, assessors/blinding and timepoint-specific results in a comparative MCI study." }, { "item_id": "N13", "question_type": "Registration and primary endpoint", "question": "Can registration and the planned primary endpoint of an eligible MCI trial be compared with the actual report?", "needed": "Registration, protocol, analysis plan and original report of the relevant cognitive result for an eligible MCI trial.", "role": "Required", "role_reason": "This is needed to avoid treating an unavailable plan as proof of selective reporting or absence of an eligible trial.", "application_exception": "Freezing this table’s conditions with knowledge of the current materials does not replace clinical-trial preregistration.", "criterion": "Compare primary endpoints, timepoints and analyses in the registration/protocol and analysis plan with actual reports; verify reasons for changes.", "basis": "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.", "condition_origin": "Case-specific conditions developed with knowledge of the preserved manuscript; neither blinded nor clinical preregistration", "proposed_research": "Specify cognitive endpoints, primary analyses and timepoints before actual data collection; link registration/plans to all results and report reasons for changes.", "current_reports": [ "S09", "S26" ], "existence": "Linked locations in the preserved manuscript were checked. The existence of direct ordinary-B1–MCI materials remains separately unverified.", "acquired_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.", "observation": "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.", "condition_status": "Unverified", "status_reason": "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.", "missingness": "Actual registration identity, primary endpoint, analysis plan, consistency with reporting and reasons for changes are unverified.", "uncertainty": "Actual registration identity, primary endpoint, analysis plan, consistency with reporting and reasons for changes are unverified.", "review_date": "2026-10-05", "reading_status": "Original papers unread · Preserved summaries read", "additional_material": "Registration, protocol, analysis plan and original report of the relevant cognitive result for an eligible MCI trial." }, { "item_id": "N14", "question_type": "Design and allocation", "question": "Can the actual design, allocation and concealment of an eligible ordinary-B1–MCI comparison be verified?", "needed": "Methods materials on design, randomization/concealment, baseline characteristics by group and blinding for a directly eligible study.", "role": "Required", "role_reason": "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_exception": "Unknown design does not justify marking crossover or cluster conditions not applicable. Retain any nonrandomized evidence with its design and limitations.", "criterion": "Link parallel/crossover/cluster and randomized/nonrandomized design, allocation/concealment and baseline balance to the selected cognitive result.", "basis": "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.", "condition_origin": "Case-specific conditions developed with knowledge of the preserved manuscript; neither blinded nor clinical preregistration", "proposed_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.", "current_reports": [ "S09", "S26" ], "existence": "Linked locations in the preserved manuscript were checked. The existence of direct ordinary-B1–MCI materials remains separately unverified.", "acquired_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.", "observation": "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.", "condition_status": "Unverified", "status_reason": "No methods materials establish actual design, allocation, concealment or baseline balance for a result on ordinary B1 alone in MCI.", "missingness": "Directly eligible design, allocation/concealment, baseline balance and relevant blinding information are unverified.", "uncertainty": "Directly eligible design, allocation/concealment, baseline balance and relevant blinding information are unverified.", "review_date": "2026-10-05", "reading_status": "Original papers unread · Preserved summaries read", "additional_material": "Methods materials on design, randomization/concealment, baseline characteristics by group and blinding for a directly eligible study." }, { "item_id": "N15", "question_type": "Denominators and missing data", "question": "Can actual analysis denominators, attrition and missing data for MCI cognitive results be verified?", "needed": "Participant flow, numbers assessed/analyzed at each cognitive timepoint, dropout reasons and missing-data handling in direct MCI research.", "role": "Required", "role_reason": "This is needed to avoid substituting references to separate files or randomized participant counts for actual cognitive-analysis denominators.", "application_exception": "When an adjacent paper’s n field provides no number, do not infer a participant count or 0 dropouts.", "criterion": "Distinguish selection, allocation, completion, measurement and analysis denominators, and missingness reasons/handling; link these to the relevant cognitive result.", "basis": "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.", "condition_origin": "Case-specific conditions developed with knowledge of the preserved manuscript; neither blinded nor clinical preregistration", "proposed_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.", "current_reports": [ "S09", "S26" ], "existence": "Linked locations in the preserved manuscript were checked. The existence of direct ordinary-B1–MCI materials remains separately unverified.", "acquired_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.", "observation": "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.", "condition_status": "Unverified", "status_reason": "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.", "missingness": "Allocation/completion/analysis denominators, measurement losses, dropout reasons/handling and effect uncertainty are unverified.", "uncertainty": "Allocation/completion/analysis denominators, measurement losses, dropout reasons/handling and effect uncertainty are unverified.", "review_date": "2026-10-05", "reading_status": "Original papers unread · Preserved summaries read", "additional_material": "Participant flow, numbers assessed/analyzed at each cognitive timepoint, dropout reasons and missing-data handling in direct MCI research." }, { "item_id": "N16", "question_type": "Effect of interest and analysis", "question": "Can the definition and analysis of an actual between-group MCI effect be verified?", "needed": "Effect-of-interest definition, analysis population, model, group results and between-group estimates for an eligible MCI comparison.", "role": "Required", "role_reason": "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_exception": "Do not fill an unknown analysis population with ITT; the manuscript’s analysis-attempt records are not actual cognitive effects.", "criterion": "Link assignment/adherence effects, ITT/PP, final values/change scores, between-/within-group definitions, adjustment models and design handling to actual results.", "basis": "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.", "condition_origin": "Case-specific conditions developed with knowledge of the preserved manuscript; neither blinded nor clinical preregistration", "proposed_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.", "current_reports": [], "existence": "Linked locations in the preserved manuscript were checked. The existence of direct ordinary-B1–MCI materials remains separately unverified.", "acquired_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.", "observation": "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.", "condition_status": "Unverified", "status_reason": "Actual between-group MCI estimates, analysis populations and models could not be verified. Calculation-attempt records were not used as actual results.", "missingness": "Effect of interest, analysis population, within-/between-group definitions, adjustment, design handling and results are unverified.", "uncertainty": "Effect of interest, analysis population, within-/between-group definitions, adjustment, design handling and results are unverified.", "review_date": "2026-10-05", "reading_status": "Original papers unread · Preserved summaries read", "additional_material": "Effect-of-interest definition, analysis population, model, group results and between-group estimates for an eligible MCI comparison." }, { "item_id": "N17", "question_type": "Effect, interval and importance", "question": "Can direct cognitive-change effects, variability, CIs and an important difference be verified?", "needed": "Scale-specific between-group effects, variability types, denominators, CIs and evidence for clinical-importance criteria for an eligible MCI result.", "role": "Required", "role_reason": "This is needed to avoid writing an unknown effect as 0 or interpreting ? and null as numerical small-effect or low-precision values.", "application_exception": "Do not estimate new effects from P values or invent universal numerical minimums for duration, sample size, study count or importance.", "criterion": "Distinguish actual scales, between-group effects, SD/SE, denominators and CIs; compare with an evidence-based important difference or record why interpretation is unavailable.", "basis": "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.", "condition_origin": "Case-specific conditions developed with knowledge of the preserved manuscript; neither blinded nor clinical preregistration", "proposed_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.", "current_reports": [], "existence": "Linked locations in the preserved manuscript were checked. The existence of direct ordinary-B1–MCI materials remains separately unverified.", "acquired_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.", "observation": "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.", "condition_status": "Unverified", "status_reason": "Materials establishing direct cognitive effects, variability/CIs and importance criteria are unavailable, preventing interpretation of magnitude, precision and importance.", "missingness": "Between-group effect, SD/SE, CI, denominator and evidence for scale-specific important differences are unverified.", "uncertainty": "Between-group effect, SD/SE, CI, denominator and evidence for scale-specific important differences are unverified.", "review_date": "2026-10-05", "reading_status": "Original papers unread · Preserved summaries read", "additional_material": "Scale-specific between-group effects, variability types, denominators, CIs and evidence for clinical-importance criteria for an eligible MCI result." }, { "item_id": "N18", "question_type": "Adjacent S09 result", "question": "Was S09’s cognitive-trial summary separated from a direct effect of ordinary B1 in MCI?", "needed": "Preserved bibliography, intervention, population/endpoint, exclusion role and result-summary locations for S09.", "role": "Required", "role_reason": "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_exception": "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.", "criterion": "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.", "basis": "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.", "condition_origin": "Case-specific conditions developed with knowledge of the preserved manuscript; neither blinded nor clinical preregistration", "proposed_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.", "current_reports": [ "S09" ], "existence": "Linked locations in the preserved manuscript were checked. The existence of direct ordinary-B1–MCI materials remains separately unverified.", "acquired_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.", "observation": "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.", "condition_status": "Verified", "status_reason": "The adjacent report’s identity, endpoint, exclusion reason and nontransfer to direct evidence were verified within the source’s scope.", "missingness": "S09 numerical results, CIs and denominators absent from the current summary, and direct ordinary-B1–MCI effects, remain separately unverified.", "uncertainty": "S09 numerical results, CIs and denominators absent from the current summary, and direct ordinary-B1–MCI effects, remain separately unverified.", "review_date": "2026-10-05", "reading_status": "Original papers unread · Preserved summaries read", "additional_material": "Preserved bibliography, intervention, population/endpoint, exclusion role and result-summary locations for S09." }, { "item_id": "N19", "question_type": "Contrary S26 result", "question": "Was the negative ordinary-thiamine dementia result kept from becoming a conclusion of no effect in MCI?", "needed": "S26 population/endpoint, ordinary-B1 identity, preserved results and original body-text locations addressing the negative result.", "role": "Required", "role_reason": "This is needed to retain unfavorable adjacent findings while respecting applicability limits arising from differences in the actual question.", "application_exception": "The source provides no actual S26 numerical results, P values/CIs or denominators; do not invent statistical no-difference findings or effect sizes.", "criterion": "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.", "basis": "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.", "condition_origin": "Case-specific conditions developed with knowledge of the preserved manuscript; neither blinded nor clinical preregistration", "proposed_research": "Obtain results by directly comparing ordinary B1 in MCI; interpret differences from dementia evidence separately by population and disease stage.", "current_reports": [ "S26" ], "existence": "Linked locations in the preserved manuscript were checked. The existence of direct ordinary-B1–MCI materials remains separately unverified.", "acquired_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.", "observation": "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.", "condition_status": "Verified", "status_reason": "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.", "missingness": "S26 statistical details and directly eligible MCI effects are unverified in the current inputs.", "uncertainty": "S26 statistical details and directly eligible MCI effects are unverified in the current inputs.", "review_date": "2026-10-05", "reading_status": "Original papers unread · Preserved summaries read", "additional_material": "S26 population/endpoint, ordinary-B1 identity, preserved results and original body-text locations addressing the negative result." }, { "item_id": "N20", "question_type": "Bibliographic identity and corrections", "question": "Were the benfotiamine paper’s identifier correction and both reports’ bibliographic links preserved accurately?", "needed": "Exact original wording of current citation/evidence records and the PMID/DOI linkage correction.", "role": "Required", "role_reason": "This is needed to avoid mixing a potentially mislinked paper identifier with different effect evidence.", "application_exception": "Do not interpret a publisher URL’s existence or its /fullarticle path as successful full-text reading.", "criterion": "Link the original correction’s PMID/DOI to citation/evidence identity without labeling this as a current external identity check or full-text verification.", "basis": "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.", "condition_origin": "Case-specific conditions developed with knowledge of the preserved manuscript; neither blinded nor clinical preregistration", "proposed_research": "When obtaining materials later, compare PMID, DOI, authors/year and intervention identity; preserve before/after identifiers and the grounds for any correction.", "current_reports": [ "S09", "S26" ], "existence": "Linked locations in the preserved manuscript were checked. The existence of direct ordinary-B1–MCI materials remains separately unverified.", "acquired_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.", "observation": "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.", "condition_status": "Verified", "status_reason": "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.", "missingness": "Current publisher-material status, full text and any additional corrections or retractions were not rechecked.", "uncertainty": "Current publisher-material status, full text and any additional corrections or retractions were not rechecked.", "review_date": "2026-10-05", "reading_status": "Original papers unread · Preserved summaries read", "additional_material": "Exact original wording of current citation/evidence records and the PMID/DOI linkage correction." }, { "item_id": "N21", "question_type": "Reports and trial families", "question": "Were the two adjacent reports kept from being counted as independent replications of direct MCI trials?", "needed": "Study identifiers, bibliography and roles for both reports, plus family-linkage materials for additional registrations or related reports.", "role": "Required", "role_reason": "This is needed to avoid counting two different citations as 2 direct MCI replications or 2 independent refutations.", "application_exception": "Identifiers alone do not fully verify institutional or participant independence across studies. Leave undetermined direct-trial and participant counts null.", "criterion": "Link bibliographic/study identifiers and exclusion roles; distinguish report counts from unique directly eligible trial and participant counts.", "basis": "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.", "condition_origin": "Case-specific conditions developed with knowledge of the preserved manuscript; neither blinded nor clinical preregistration", "proposed_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.", "current_reports": [ "S09", "S26" ], "existence": "Linked locations in the preserved manuscript were checked. The existence of direct ordinary-B1–MCI materials remains separately unverified.", "acquired_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.", "observation": "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.", "condition_status": "Verified", "status_reason": "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.", "missingness": "Actual unique direct-trial and participant counts, and complete family relationships requiring comparison of registrations/full texts and related reports, are unverified.", "uncertainty": "Actual unique direct-trial and participant counts, and complete family relationships requiring comparison of registrations/full texts and related reports, are unverified.", "review_date": "2026-10-05", "reading_status": "Original papers unread · Preserved summaries read", "additional_material": "Study identifiers, bibliography and roles for both reports, plus family-linkage materials for additional registrations or related reports." }, { "item_id": "N22", "question_type": "Actual reading scope", "question": "Were current local-summary reading and historical publisher-abstract access distinguished for each material?", "needed": "Exact locations, values and hashes in the preserved materials, original access levels and source locations for both reports, and material-specific reading records.", "role": "Required", "role_reason": "This display condition is required to avoid upgrading a link or historical abstract access to current full-text reading.", "application_exception": "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.", "criterion": "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.", "basis": "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.", "condition_origin": "Case-specific conditions developed with knowledge of the preserved manuscript; neither blinded nor clinical preregistration", "proposed_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.", "current_reports": [ "S09", "S26" ], "existence": "Linked locations in the preserved manuscript were checked. The existence of direct ordinary-B1–MCI materials remains separately unverified.", "acquired_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.", "observation": "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.", "condition_status": "Verified", "status_reason": "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.", "missingness": "Direct verification of current existence, availability, access and results of external abstracts/full texts was not performed.", "uncertainty": "Direct verification of current existence, availability, access and results of external abstracts/full texts was not performed.", "review_date": "2026-10-05", "reading_status": "Original papers unread · Preserved summaries read", "additional_material": "Exact locations, values and hashes in the preserved materials, original access levels and source locations for both reports, and material-specific reading records." }, { "item_id": "N23", "question_type": "Search and selection scope", "question": "Can the original search’s databases, strategies and selection scope be traced in the current inputs?", "needed": "Actual search sources, strategies, timing, selection/exclusion flow and coverage of unpublished/registered materials and corrections in the historical search record.", "role": "Required", "role_reason": "This is needed to avoid extending absence statements in the preserved summaries to absence from all current literature.", "application_exception": "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.", "criterion": "Preserve the evidence cut-off and bounded search conclusion; distinguish whether actual search strategies, databases and exclusion flow have been obtained.", "basis": "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.", "condition_origin": "Case-specific conditions developed with knowledge of the preserved manuscript; neither blinded nor clinical preregistration", "proposed_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.", "current_reports": [], "existence": "Linked locations in the preserved manuscript were checked. The existence of direct ordinary-B1–MCI materials remains separately unverified.", "acquired_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.", "observation": "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.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "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.", "missingness": "Actual search sources, strategies and selection flow in the original log, and the subsequent current literature status, are unverified.", "uncertainty": "Actual search sources, strategies and selection flow in the original log, and the subsequent current literature status, are unverified.", "review_date": "2026-10-05", "reading_status": "Original papers unread · Preserved summaries read", "additional_material": "Actual search sources, strategies, timing, selection/exclusion flow and coverage of unpublished/registered materials and corrections in the historical search record." }, { "item_id": "N24", "question_type": "Preserving original ? and null", "question": "Were the original ?, absent score, unused axes and bounded no-eligible-human-result marker preserved unchanged?", "needed": "Exact wording of the original grade, score, assessment axes, human-research existence and eligible-result flags, calculation records and bounded unverified interpretation.", "role": "Required", "role_reason": "This meaning boundary is required to prevent reading the original ? as total absence of human research, no effect or E0/RX/F.", "application_exception": "The original absent score and null unused axes are not 0. Passing current structural checks is separate from assessing clinical efficacy.", "criterion": "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.", "basis": "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.", "condition_origin": "Case-specific conditions developed with knowledge of the preserved manuscript; neither blinded nor clinical preregistration", "proposed_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.", "current_reports": [], "existence": "Linked locations in the preserved manuscript were checked. The existence of direct ordinary-B1–MCI materials remains separately unverified.", "acquired_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.", "observation": "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.", "condition_status": "Verified", "status_reason": "Original types, values and the bounded interpretation were preserved precisely without conversion into a new clinical score, an effect of 0 or equivalence.", "missingness": "Direct effects and the worldwide existence of human research not established by the original status remain separately unverified.", "uncertainty": "Direct effects and the worldwide existence of human research not established by the original status remain separately unverified.", "review_date": "2026-10-05", "reading_status": "Original papers unread · Preserved summaries read", "additional_material": "Exact wording of the original grade, score, assessment axes, human-research existence and eligible-result flags, calculation records and bounded unverified interpretation." }, { "item_id": "N25", "question_type": "Funding and interests", "question": "Can research funding, product provision and conflicts of interest for direct MCI evidence be verified?", "needed": "Funding, conflicts of interest, product provision, author/institution materials and related trial-family records for direct MCI reports.", "role": "Supplementary; required for independence claims", "role_reason": "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_exception": "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.", "criterion": "Verify actual funding, product provision, author employment/patents, declared interests and study families; do not interpret unknown information as independent funding.", "basis": "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.", "condition_origin": "Case-specific conditions developed with knowledge of the preserved manuscript; neither blinded nor clinical preregistration", "proposed_research": "Future research should disclose funding, product provision and author relationships; link families of replication studies and conflicts separately for interpretation.", "current_reports": [ "S09", "S26" ], "existence": "Linked locations in the preserved manuscript were checked. The existence of direct ordinary-B1–MCI materials remains separately unverified.", "acquired_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.", "observation": "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.", "condition_status": "Unverified", "status_reason": "No materials establish actual funding, provision, conflicts of interest or independent replication for direct MCI results.", "missingness": "Research funding, product provision, author/institution relationships, declared interests and independence of direct evidence are unverified.", "uncertainty": "Research funding, product provision, author/institution relationships, declared interests and independence of direct evidence are unverified.", "review_date": "2026-10-05", "reading_status": "Original papers unread · Preserved summaries read", "additional_material": "Funding, conflicts of interest, product provision, author/institution materials and related trial-family records for direct MCI reports." }, { "item_id": "N26", "question_type": "Harm events and denominators", "question": "Can adverse-event definitions, collection and denominators be verified under the same ordinary-B1–MCI exposure?", "needed": "Adverse-event definitions, collection methods, events/exposure denominators by group, severity and discontinuations in ordinary-B1 MCI research.", "role": "Supplementary; required for safety claims", "role_reason": "This is needed to avoid turning the existence of a cognitive trial or summary into a claim of safety or 0 adverse events.", "application_exception": "Do not transfer tolerability from other molecular forms or dementia trials as equivalent. Do not calculate incidence without denominators.", "criterion": "Link actual dose, duration, event definitions/severity, collection methods, affected-person/event counts and exposure denominators.", "basis": "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.", "condition_origin": "Case-specific conditions developed with knowledge of the preserved manuscript; neither blinded nor clinical preregistration", "proposed_research": "Systematically collect harms in the same population/exposure separately from efficacy outcomes; disclose affected-person counts, event counts, denominators and duration together.", "current_reports": [], "existence": "Linked locations in the preserved manuscript were checked. The existence of direct ordinary-B1–MCI materials remains separately unverified.", "acquired_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.", "observation": "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.", "condition_status": "Unverified", "status_reason": "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.", "missingness": "Event definitions, collection methods, severity, affected-person/event counts, exposure denominators, duration and discontinuations are unverified.", "uncertainty": "Event definitions, collection methods, severity, affected-person/event counts, exposure denominators, duration and discontinuations are unverified.", "review_date": "2026-10-05", "reading_status": "Original papers unread · Preserved summaries read", "additional_material": "Adverse-event definitions, collection methods, events/exposure denominators by group, severity and discontinuations in ordinary-B1 MCI research." }, { "item_id": "N27", "question_type": "Harm timing and comparisons", "question": "Can exposure timing, comparisons and follow-up losses for harms be verified in the same MCI materials?", "needed": "Event timelines, discontinuation/recovery, group comparisons, follow-up losses and completeness of event disclosure under the same ordinary-B1 MCI exposure.", "role": "Supplementary; required for comparative safety", "role_reason": "This is needed to avoid upgrading harms unseen in short or incomplete summaries to safety, causality or total incidence.", "application_exception": "Do not infer improvement after discontinuation or re-exposure when these are absent. Unverified information also does not mean a harm event occurred.", "criterion": "Link exposure start/stop, event onset/recovery, follow-up, comparators and attrition/detection by group; temporal sequence alone does not establish causality.", "basis": "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.", "condition_origin": "Case-specific conditions developed with knowledge of the preserved manuscript; neither blinded nor clinical preregistration", "proposed_research": "Use the same safety follow-up procedures in both groups; collect exposure, onset/recovery and attrition, and report limitations of comparative risk.", "current_reports": [], "existence": "Linked locations in the preserved manuscript were checked. The existence of direct ordinary-B1–MCI materials remains separately unverified.", "acquired_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.", "observation": "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.", "condition_status": "Unverified", "status_reason": "Materials linking event timing, comparisons and follow-up scope under the same population/exposure are unavailable, preventing a judgment about risk or causality.", "missingness": "Exposure/onset/recovery, discontinuation/re-exposure, between-group event comparisons, detection differences and long-term follow-up/losses are unverified.", "uncertainty": "Exposure/onset/recovery, discontinuation/re-exposure, between-group event comparisons, detection differences and long-term follow-up/losses are unverified.", "review_date": "2026-10-05", "reading_status": "Original papers unread · Preserved summaries read", "additional_material": "Event timelines, discontinuation/recovery, group comparisons, follow-up losses and completeness of event disclosure under the same ordinary-B1 MCI exposure." }, { "item_id": "N28", "question_type": "Interaction coverage", "question": "Was drug-interaction information for ordinary B1 in MCI sufficiently verified?", "needed": "Actual concomitant medicines, dose, timing and materials/search coverage and results for specific interactions.", "role": "Supplementary; required for interaction claims", "role_reason": "This is needed to avoid extending the efficacy manuscript’s scope into a guarantee of individual safety with all medicines.", "application_exception": "Failure to perform a comprehensive search alone establishes neither presence nor absence of interactions. Do not create individual dosing instructions.", "criterion": "Distinguish drug-interaction search/verification coverage from actual concomitant exposure; do not interpret absence of a separate search as absence of interactions.", "basis": "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.", "condition_origin": "Case-specific conditions developed with knowledge of the preserved manuscript; neither blinded nor clinical preregistration", "proposed_research": "Subsequent safety assessments should record actual concomitant medicines and review suitable exposure/outcome materials for each specified interaction question.", "current_reports": [], "existence": "Linked locations in the preserved manuscript were checked. The existence of direct ordinary-B1–MCI materials remains separately unverified.", "acquired_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.", "observation": "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.", "condition_status": "Unverified", "status_reason": "No separate search and unknown actual concomitant-treatment details cannot be converted into safety or absence of interactions.", "missingness": "Actual concomitant medicines/exposure, direct evidence of specific interactions and comprehensive verification coverage are unverified.", "uncertainty": "Actual concomitant medicines/exposure, direct evidence of specific interactions and comprehensive verification coverage are unverified.", "review_date": "2026-10-05", "reading_status": "Original papers unread · Preserved summaries read", "additional_material": "Actual concomitant medicines, dose, timing and materials/search coverage and results for specific interactions." }, { "item_id": "N29", "question_type": "Dose and long-term extensions", "question": "Does the current table claim an optimal dose, persistence after discontinuation or long-term cognitive effects?", "needed": "Direct dose comparisons, discontinuation/long-term follow-up and exposure/timepoint-specific results if an extension question is newly addressed.", "role": "Supplementary; required for extension claims", "role_reason": "This supplementary boundary prevents extending an unverified main effect to a specific regimen or long-term effect.", "application_exception": "Do not require all dose and long-term studies for the current narrow cognitive-change question. Original dose/duration uncertainty remains in other rows.", "criterion": "Separate the fixed comparative cognitive-change question from optimal-dose or long-term-maintenance extensions, and do not claim those extensions.", "basis": "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.", "condition_origin": "Case-specific conditions developed with knowledge of the preserved manuscript; neither blinded nor clinical preregistration", "proposed_research": "If an extension is needed, separately plan dose comparisons and discontinuation/long-term follow-up; report direct estimates and safety information.", "current_reports": [], "existence": "Linked locations in the preserved manuscript were checked. The existence of direct ordinary-B1–MCI materials remains separately unverified.", "acquired_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.", "observation": "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.", "condition_status": "Not applicable", "status_reason": "Because optimal-dose and long-term-maintenance extensions are not added to the current original claim, verification of those extensions is not required here.", "missingness": "Direct results for extension questions are unverified. Not applicable does not mean no long-term effect.", "uncertainty": "Direct results for extension questions are unverified. Not applicable does not mean no long-term effect.", "review_date": "2026-10-05", "reading_status": "Original papers unread · Preserved summaries read", "additional_material": "Direct dose comparisons, discontinuation/long-term follow-up and exposure/timepoint-specific results if an extension question is newly addressed." }, { "item_id": "N30", "question_type": "Dementia-prevention extension", "question": "Is cognitive-test change extended to dementia prevention, quality of life or mortality effects?", "needed": "Population, denominators, duration and comparative results directly measuring dementia incidence/clinical function, quality of life or survival if an extension question is addressed.", "role": "Supplementary; required for clinical-event extensions", "role_reason": "This condition avoids automatically extending a cognitive-test question to dementia prevention or every improvement in patients’ lives.", "application_exception": "Do not require an event trial for a numerical-change question. Unverified direct cognitive effects do not establish an event effect of 0.", "criterion": "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.", "basis": "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.", "condition_origin": "Case-specific conditions developed with knowledge of the preserved manuscript; neither blinded nor clinical preregistration", "proposed_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.", "current_reports": [], "existence": "Linked locations in the preserved manuscript were checked. The existence of direct ordinary-B1–MCI materials remains separately unverified.", "acquired_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.", "observation": "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.", "condition_status": "Not applicable", "status_reason": "Because no separate clinical-event extension is claimed, event results are not required for the current cognitive-change table.", "missingness": "Direct dementia-prevention, quality-of-life and survival results were not verified within the current question.", "uncertainty": "Direct dementia-prevention, quality-of-life and survival results were not verified within the current question.", "review_date": "2026-10-05", "reading_status": "Original papers unread · Preserved summaries read", "additional_material": "Population, denominators, duration and comparative results directly measuring dementia incidence/clinical function, quality of life or survival if an extension question is addressed." }, { "item_id": "N31", "question_type": "Assay-interference coverage", "question": "Can presence or absence of interference be judged within the original assay-interference verification scope?", "needed": "Materials on specific assays, actual B1 exposure and interference/errors, plus separate search/verification coverage.", "role": "Supplementary; required for assay-interference claims", "role_reason": "This supplementary condition avoids extending an unsearched interference question to error-free assessment tools or biochemical-assay safety.", "application_exception": "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.", "criterion": "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.", "basis": "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.", "condition_origin": "Case-specific conditions developed with knowledge of the preserved manuscript; neither blinded nor clinical preregistration", "proposed_research": "For a subsequent question, specify the assay actually used, compare exposure and sampling/assessment timing with assay principles, and perform the necessary validation.", "current_reports": [], "existence": "Linked locations in the preserved manuscript were checked. The existence of direct ordinary-B1–MCI materials remains separately unverified.", "acquired_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.", "observation": "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.", "condition_status": "Unverified", "status_reason": "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.", "missingness": "Interference materials for specific assays/exposures and separate verification coverage are unverified.", "uncertainty": "Interference materials for specific assays/exposures and separate verification coverage are unverified.", "review_date": "2026-10-05", "reading_status": "Original papers unread · Preserved summaries read", "additional_material": "Materials on specific assays, actual B1 exposure and interference/errors, plus separate search/verification coverage." }, { "item_id": "N32", "question_type": "Updates and reference scope", "question": "Were the original update conditions and the separate records not opened here clearly documented?", "needed": "Original update policy, editorial references and identities, dates and scope of subsequent materials/corrections, with before/after records.", "role": "Required", "role_reason": "This is needed to avoid presenting reference paths and historical self-checks as current reinvestigation or automatic verification.", "application_exception": "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.", "criterion": "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.", "basis": "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.", "condition_origin": "Case-specific conditions developed with knowledge of the preserved manuscript; neither blinded nor clinical preregistration", "proposed_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.", "current_reports": [], "existence": "Linked locations in the preserved manuscript were checked. The existence of direct ordinary-B1–MCI materials remains separately unverified.", "acquired_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.", "observation": "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.", "condition_status": "Verified", "status_reason": "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.", "missingness": "The current contents, existence and additional results of each referenced file, and the latest external status, were not checked within this scope.", "uncertainty": "The current contents, existence and additional results of each referenced file, and the latest external status, were not checked within this scope.", "review_date": "2026-10-05", "reading_status": "Original papers unread · Preserved summaries read", "additional_material": "Original update policy, editorial references and identities, dates and scope of subsequent materials/corrections, with before/after records." } ], "reports": [ { "report_id": "S09", "title": "Gibson et al. — benfotiamine and cognitive decline in early Alzheimer disease (2020)", "url": "https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3233/JAD-200896", "report_type": "Clinical paper", "existence": "Preserved bibliography, linked URLs and summaries were checked. Current availability of external materials was not newly queried.", "acquired_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.", "study_family": "Benfotiamine-earlyAD-2020", "independent_replication": "This benfotiamine/early-Alzheimer-disease report is not a direct result for ordinary B1 in MCI.", "observed_result": "The cognitive trial used benfotiamine, a different molecular intervention from ordinary thiamine.", "result_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.", "source_evidence_date": "2026-09-15", "materials": [ { "material_type": "Publisher abstract", "public_status": "Current public availability unverified", "access_status": "External access not attempted in this work", "acquired": false, "actually_read": "Unread in this work", "as_of": null, "qualification": "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.", "material_id": "S09-M1", "url": "https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3233/JAD-200896" }, { "material_type": "Clinical-paper full text", "public_status": "Direct full-text URL and current public availability unverified", "access_status": "External access not attempted in this work", "acquired": false, "actually_read": "Unread in this work", "as_of": null, "qualification": "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.", "material_id": "S09-M2", "url": null }, { "material_type": "Preserved verdict summary", "public_status": "Preserved material", "access_status": "Preserved summary accessed and read", "acquired": true, "actually_read": "Preserved summary read", "as_of": "2026-10-31", "qualification": "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.", "material_id": "S09-L1", "url": null } ], "links": [ { "label": "Official source", "url": "https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3233/JAD-200896" } ] }, { "report_id": "S26", "title": "Nolan et al. — a trial of thiamine in Alzheimer disease (1991)", "url": "https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaneurology/fullarticle/590593", "report_type": "Clinical paper", "existence": "Preserved bibliography, linked URLs and summaries were checked. Current availability of external materials was not newly queried.", "acquired_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.", "study_family": "Nolan-AD-1991", "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.", "observed_result": "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.", "result_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.", "source_evidence_date": "2026-09-15", "materials": [ { "material_type": "Publisher abstract", "public_status": "Current public availability unverified", "access_status": "External access not attempted in this work", "acquired": false, "actually_read": "Unread in this work", "as_of": null, "qualification": "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.", "material_id": "S26-M1", "url": "https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaneurology/fullarticle/590593" }, { "material_type": "Clinical-paper full text", "public_status": "Direct full-text URL and current public availability unverified", "access_status": "External access not attempted in this work", "acquired": false, "actually_read": "Unread in this work", "as_of": null, "qualification": "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.", "material_id": "S26-M2", "url": null }, { "material_type": "Preserved verdict summary", "public_status": "Preserved material", "access_status": "Preserved summary accessed and read", "acquired": true, "actually_read": "Preserved summary read", "as_of": "2026-10-31", "qualification": "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.", "material_id": "S26-L1", "url": null } ], "links": [ { "label": "Official source", "url": "https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaneurology/fullarticle/590593" } ] } ], "method_sources": [ { "id": "M03", "version": "Cochrane Handbook 6.5 (2024), chapter updated 2023-08", "url": "https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/handbook/current/chapter-03", "section": "§3.1, §3.2.1–3.2.3, MECIR C5/C7/C13", "official_principle": "Clearly document the question, eligibility conditions and reasons for changes, and distinguish intervention variants.", "review_level": "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." }, { "id": "M04", "version": "Cochrane Handbook 6.5.1 (2025), chapter updated 2025-03", "url": "https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/handbook/current/chapter-04", "section": "§4.5, §4.6.1–4.6.3, MECIR C42", "official_principle": "Distinguish and link studies and reports; do not omit studies solely because results are unreported.", "review_level": "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." }, { "id": "M08", "version": "Cochrane Handbook 6.5 (2024), chapter updated 2019-10", "url": "https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/handbook/current/chapter-08", "section": "§8.1–8.2.3, Table 8.2.a", "official_principle": "Fix the outcome and effect of interest when reviewing randomization, attrition, missing data, measurement and selective reporting.", "review_level": "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." }, { "id": "M15", "version": "Cochrane Handbook 6.5 (2024), chapter updated 2023-08", "url": "https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/handbook/current/chapter-15", "section": "§15.2.4, §15.3.1–15.3.3", "official_principle": "Distinguish effect values, intervals, importance and applicability. Sample size alone does not determine precision.", "review_level": "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." }, { "id": "M19", "version": "Cochrane Handbook 6.5 (2024), chapter updated 2019-10", "url": "https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/handbook/current/chapter-19", "section": "§19.1.2, §19.2.1–19.2.4", "official_principle": "Harm questions may require different designs, populations and follow-up from efficacy questions. Case reports do not establish incidence.", "review_level": "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." } ], "status_dictionary": { "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" }, "study_overlap": { "state": "Distinct cited reports · Directly eligible MCI trials and unique participant counts unverified", "unique_trial_count": null, "unique_participant_count": null, "reason": "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." }, "history": [ { "date": "2026-10-31", "kind": "Public display and data separated", "view_version": "1.0", "change": "Public display and data were created from the existing 32 items. No new clinical search, verification-status change or scoring was performed." } ], "language": "en", "translation_date": "2026-10-31" }