Nicotinamide riboside (NR; salt and product details unverified) × Improvement of usual gait speed in frail older adults

Required evidence, verification status and materials actually read
Item	AVerification status	BReading scope	CReview item	DCurrent findings	EWhy unverified	FRequired materials and conditions	GFurther research
1	Verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N01 · Independent questionDoes the table address only the between-group change in usual gait speed in frail older adults?Required	The original claim is improvement of usual gait speed in frail older adults. The single question addresses community-dwelling adults aged 75 or older with a Fried score of 3 or higher, a planned oral NR regimen of 2,000 mg/day for 52 weeks versus placebo, and change in usual speed (m/s). S01 S02	The claim boundaries are specified in the identity of the retained assessment question. Verification of these boundaries does not verify a completed trial yielding that result or verify efficacy.	Explicit boundaries of the original claim, population, planned oral NR, placebo, and change in usual speed at 52 weeks	In a new study, specify usual speed as a single outcome of interest and prespecify the population, comparison, measurement time points, and analysis.
2	Unverified	Full text not readStored summary read	N02 · Ingredient identityAre the NR salt, product, dosage form, and batch in the plan verified?Required	The ingredient is retained as NR, but its salt, crystal form, brand, manufacturer, manufacturing source, dosage form, purity, batch, and release form are unverified. NIAGEN information from another trial was not copied into this plan. S01 S02	The retained identity fields are null or unverified. The molecular name NR alone cannot verify an identical salt, product, or basis for exposure conversion.	Documentation of the exact NR salt, product, manufacturer, assayed purity, batch, and release form in NADage	A suitable comparative study records the test product's analytical results, batch, and active ingredient together with the placebo composition to define a reproducible exposure.
3	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N03 · Single interventionAre other active ingredients or exercise packages separated from the NR-versus-placebo comparison?Required	The question requires an NR-versus-placebo contrast. The principle of not transferring effects from NMN, nicotinamide, niacin, resveratrol, or an exercise package is specified, but full product composition and common care have not been verified. S01 S02	The contrast to be selected is defined, but the actual plan's full composition and concomitant-intervention rules remain unverified. Requesting a single-component contrast differs from having implemented single-component exposure.	Full product composition and rules for exercise, rehabilitation, diet, and active-ingredient use in both groups	Specify standard care in both groups and record differences in exercise or rehabilitation, or design these as a separate factor, to estimate the NR contrast.
4	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N04 · Frail populationAre the criteria of age 75 or older and Fried score 3 or higher, and the population actually selected, verified?Required	The official registration index records criteria of community dwelling, age 75 or older, and a Fried Frailty Phenotype score of 3 or higher. The relationship between the investigator page's description of mild-to-moderate frailty, detailed exclusion criteria, and the population actually selected is unverified. S01 S02	The criteria are a description of the plan verified from a limited official index. The full registration and actual baseline table cannot be verified from the retained summary currently held, so a match with the actual population is not established.	Full eligibility criteria, selection flow, Fried components, and actual baseline characteristics table	Record the actual selection criteria, baseline Fried components, and comorbidities, and link the analysis denominator for the frail population of interest.
5	Unverified	Full text not readStored summary read	N05 · Baseline statusAre baseline usual speed, nutrition, and deficiency status verified?Required	Upper and lower limits for baseline usual gait speed, nutritional status, dietary NR/NAD precursors, and deficiency tests are unverified. The label frailty alone does not establish NR deficiency. S01 S02	Values related to baseline speed and deficiency in the original assessment question's identity are null. Data are unavailable to distinguish applicability according to the degree of baseline impairment and nutritional status.	Data on baseline gait speed, nutrition and dietary assessment, deficiency testing, medications, and walking aids	Specify baseline functional and nutritional measures, and, if an effect-modification analysis is needed, prespecify its rationale and analysis plan.
6	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N06 · Planned doseDoes 2,000 mg/day represent a value for which the actual intake and dosing schedule are also verified?Required	NADage's 2,000 mg/day is the planned daily NR amount. Amount per dose, daily frequency, dose escalation, basis for salt conversion, and actual intake are unverified. The conversion to 2 g/day in the original historical calculation is only a cross-check of mass units. S01	The planned daily amount is retained, but it is not actual exposure. The unit conversion also does not verify equivalence in salt or active-moiety amount.	Amount per dose, frequency, dose escalation, basis for salt conversion, and actual medication-taking and adherence records	In the trial, collect records of each administration and adherence, discontinuations, and dose reductions, and distinguish the prespecified effect of assignment from analyses of actual exposure.
7	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N07 · Planned durationIs the 52-week plan linked to actual exposure, measurement, and follow-up after discontinuation?Required	The plan specifies 52 weeks of treatment and assessment at week 52. Actual exposure duration and separate follow-up after discontinuation are unverified. The original gait-speed result at that time point is also unverified. S01	The planned duration is known, but actual completion, exposure, and measurement times are unavailable. The plan cannot be read as evidence that long-term results or a maintenance effect exist.	Records of actual initiation, discontinuation, the week 52 visit, observation windows, and follow-up after discontinuation	Record visit windows, actual days of exposure, and missing data appropriate to the original question; if persistence is a separate objective, design follow-up after discontinuation separately.
8	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N08 · Placebo comparisonAre the placebo composition, matching method, and common care in both groups verified?Required	The official registration index describes a placebo-comparison plan. The fields for the placebo's exact composition, matching method, and common care in both groups are null or unverified. S02	The comparator's name is verified, but it cannot be verified whether NR was the only actual difference or how blinding was implemented.	Placebo composition, appearance/sensory matching, and rules for common medications, diet, exercise, and rehabilitation	Disclose the placebo and common care, and record blinding for medication taking and assessment and differences in care between groups.
9	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N09 · Allocation implementationAre the actual implementation and concealment of the randomized, double-blind plan verified?Required	S01–S02 are retained as a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled plan. The full registration, actual allocation, concealment, baseline balance, and data on actual implementation and results have not been verified. S01 S02	The design description in the public plan alone does not verify the actual allocation process. Do not reassess unknown implementation as either unbiased or failed.	Full protocol, allocation-sequence generation/concealment, and data on actual allocation and baseline balance	Document the actual allocation sequence, concealment, blinding, and baseline characteristics, and report results for the selected effect of assignment.
10	Unverified	Full text not readStored summary read	N10 · Measurement of usual speedAre the test distance, acceleration section, repetitions, and instrument for usual speed verified?Required	The question concerns change in m/s at a usual, comfortable pace. The actual test distance, acceleration section, instrument, repetitions, walking aids, and assessor blinding are unverified. S01 S02	target_endpoint defines the measurement concept for the question, but protocol_details is null. Matching units or the word gait alone does not establish that the tests are identical.	Usual-speed measurement manual, walking aids, assessors, repetitions, and unit definitions	Standardize the usual gait-speed procedure and specify assessment time points, aids, assessor blinding, and repeated measurements.
11	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N11 · 6-minute-walk boundaryIs NADage's 6-minute walk with concurrent sensors the same endpoint as usual speed over a short course?Required	The public plan for NADage, the closest study, describes a 6-minute walk with concurrent sensor gait assessment. Whether this is an endpoint equivalent to usual short-course gait speed has not been verified. S01 S02	The endpoint's actual name in the plan is verified, but usual_gait_equivalence is not_verified. Creating usual gait speed from distance÷time does not resolve this gap.	Definitions of the 6-minute walk/sensors and data on equivalence with the usual-speed test and separately reported results	Measure the two tests separately, describe their protocols, units and observation windows, and report a usual gait speed estimate that matches the question.
12	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N12 · Endpoint hierarchyAre the page's usual gait speed endpoint and its actual trial hierarchy as primary, secondary or post hoc verified?Required	Usual gait speed is this page's single editorial endpoint. The investigator page describes the 6-minute walk and sensor assessment as primary, but the field for the hierarchy of usual gait speed within the actual trial is null. S01 S02	The two descriptions concern different things, so this alone is not designated a data conflict. The prespecified hierarchy and analysis plan for usual gait speed, and their agreement with the actual report, remain unverified.	The hierarchy of usual gait speed and reasons for changes in dated registration histories, protocols and analysis plans	Specify the hierarchy and analysis of usual gait speed in the advance plan, and compare the reasons for changes in the actual report together with their dates.
13	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N13 · Planned sampleAre the planned 100 participants distinguished from the actual enrolled, randomized, completed and usual gait speed analysis counts?Required	NADage's 100 participants are a planned count. Actual enrollment, randomization, completion and usual gait speed analysis counts remain unverified. S01 S02	The nature of the planned n is clear, but actual sample-flow data are unavailable. The 100 participants cannot be converted into a per-group n or an analysis denominator.	Participant flow diagram; enrollment, allocation and completion by group; usual gait speed analysis denominators and reasons for exclusion	Report the actual sample flow at each stage, the corresponding usual gait speed analysis n and reasons for missingness alongside the results.
14	Unverified	Full text not readStored summary read	N14 · Current registry statusCan the latest recruitment and results-posting status as of the reference date be verified?Required	The wording on the investigator page about recruitment starting is a historical record. S02's directly accessed body was a glossary-only application shell, and the latest status, registration history and posted results were not verified at that time. S01 S02	The registry was not accessed in the current work. Do not read the generic word Withdrawn in the shell seen at that time as this trial's withdrawal status, or conclude that no latest results exist.	NCT06208527 registration history, status and posted results documents as of the relevant reference date	Verification of suitable materials means linking registry versions and results documents to their dates at the time; it is distinct from conducting a new trial itself.
15	Unverified	Full text not readStored summary read	N15 · Effect of interestAre the actual between-group analysis, ITT/PP and adjustment for usual gait speed verified?Required	The question concerns the between-group difference in change in usual gait speed from baseline to 52 weeks under treatment assignment. The actual analysis population, ITT/PP, adjusted model and results remain unverified. S01 S02	The estimand in the original question identity is the requested question. It cannot automatically be elevated to an analysis performed in the actual trial.	Documents defining the estimand of interest, analysis population, model, adjustment and actual results	Prespecify the effect of interest, handling of missingness and adherence, and adjustment in the analysis plan, and report an estimate for that contrast.
16	Unverified	Full text not readStored summary read	N16 · Missingness and attritionWho was missing from the 52-week speed measurement, and how was this handled?Required	Actual completion and usual gait speed analysis counts and the reasons for missing measurements are not verified in the retained materials. Observation losses cannot be assessed solely from the planned 52 weeks and 100 participants. S01 S02	Without actual sample flow and analysis data, the adequacy of missing-data handling or completeness of follow-up cannot be judged.	Missed visits, discontinuation, death/illness, inability to measure, handling of missingness and sensitivity analyses by group	Report visit flow, including discontinuation, death and inability to measure, together with prespecified handling of missingness and sensitivity analyses.
17	Unverified	Full text not readStored summary read	N17 · Target effect estimateAre direct usual gait speed changes, the between-group difference and CI verified?Required	The original values, changes, between-group estimate and CI for directly eligible usual gait speed remain unverified. target_between_group_effect_mps and target_ci are null. S01 S02	The currently retained materials include plans and results for other questions. Failure to verify direct results does not mean that the effect is 0 or that all human research is absent.	Group-specific original usual gait speed values/changes, between-group estimate and CI for the fixed population, exposure and time point	An eligible study reports group-specific results for the defined usual gait speed test together with the estimate, CI and denominator for the selected contrast.
18	Unverified	Full text not readStored summary read	N18 · Variance and intervalsAre the SD, SE, covariance and interval type for the target change verified?Required	The analysis denominator and CI for the target result remain unverified. The manuscript states that it did not estimate or fill in the target CI, SD, SE or covariance. S01 S02	No observed variance is available for calculating a new standardized effect or precision. The one-sided 90% interval from PAD pertains to a different endpoint.	Variance type, analysis n and model for usual gait speed change, and the reported between-group interval	Disclose the variance type, denominator, interval construction and analysis model for the relevant usual gait speed result.
19	Unverified	Full text not readStored summary read	N19 · Clinical importanceIs a clinically important between-group difference appropriate to this frail population and test verified?Required	The applicable between-group MCID field is null. The original question separately requires a valid between-group estimate and an interpretation of clinical importance appropriate to the population and test. S01 S02	The clinical importance for this question cannot be determined from another gait test, a threshold for individual change or a planned participant count. Exclusion of an important benefit has not been verified either.	Evidence for a clinically important between-group difference for the relevant frail population and usual gait speed protocol	First justify the evidence for an important difference appropriate to the population, test and between-group contrast, then interpret it alongside the estimated interval.
20	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N20 · Funding and provisionAre the plan's funding, product provision and authors' conflicts of interest directly verified?Supplementary; required for a claim of independence	The record that S01 contains funding information and the relevant location are retained. Because no directly eligible result has been verified, the original independence axis is null. This retained summary contains no extracted values for the specific funding source, product provision or all author roles, so their content was not inferred. S01	The existence and location of funding information are recorded, but the level of actual content in the current input is limited. Do not copy ChromaDex relationships from other NR trials as NADage's provision information.	NADage's original funding information, product provision, author roles, and patent/employment/declared conflicts of interest	Link funding, product provision and author roles to the results data, and verify the actual study families when claiming independent replication.
21	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N21 · Studies and reportsAre plans, papers, registrations and corrections kept from being double-counted as independent trials of effect?Required	The native evidence distinguishes NADage F01, NR-VETS F02, Orr MCI F03, the healthy-adult crossover F04 and NICE PAD F05. S01–S02, S03–S04 and S09–S10 are related reports within their respective families; retain the narrow original record that the number of directly eligible results is 0. S01 S02 S03 S04 S05 S08 S09 S10	The 5 family descriptions and 15 actual citations record existence; they are not counts of direct usual gait speed trials or unique participants. Within the S05–S07 range notation in evidence, individual S06/S07 citations are absent from the current list and must not be created.	A mapping of report identifiers, native F01–F05 relationships, and eligible results/endpoints/time points	When collecting materials, verify the relationships between registration numbers/DOIs and results/time points/analyses to link multiple reports of the same study.
22	Not met	Full text not readStored summary read	N22 · Adjacent trial in prefrailtyIs the NR-VETS population the same as the selected frail population with Fried scores of 3 or higher?Required	The institutional index for NR-VETS describes non-frail and prefrail participants, Fried<3. This does not match the Fried≥3 population criterion for this question, and the complete protocol and target results remain unverified. S03 S04	The population described in the currently retained index differs from the fixed question. This does not mean that NR-VETS has no efficacy or that exclusion of frail participants across all amended versions has been established.	Complete NR-VETS eligibility criteria, amendment history and usual gait speed results by frailty stratum	Verify separate results by frailty stratum in that study, or perform the same usual gait speed comparison in the selected Fried≥3 population.
23	Not met	Full text not readStored summary read	N23 · Within-group MCI resultsAre Orr's two p-values a between-group effect on usual gait speed in frail participants?Required	In Orr MCI, placebo p=0.0402 and NR p=0.4698 are tests of within-group walking-speed change in each group. They are not a between-group effect in m/s, and the clinical MCI eligibility criteria differ from the frailty eligibility conditions for this question. S05	A difference in significance between the two within-group tests is not a test of the between-group effect. The target population, protocol and between-group estimate have not been verified, so these cannot be used as direct results.	Orr's gait test, actual between-group m/s estimate/CI and results tables by population	Report a direct between-group estimate appropriate to the population of interest and usual gait speed test, and distinguish it from within-group results.
24	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N24 · MCI denominators and scheduleAre Orr's actual completion count, gait analysis denominator and dosing schedule verified?Required	Orr’s abstract and figure captions record 20 completers. The total number randomized and the gait-outcome analysis denominator are unverified in this manuscript. The historical calculation cross-checking the phases 1+1+1+6 against 9 weeks records ambiguity in the abstract’s duration wording; it does not constitute a correction of the original table or a target 52-week result. S05	Only the completed count and a cross-check of the historical schedule are available; an analysis count for the target population is absent. That calculation is not presented as a new clinical calculation or as confirmed actual treatment days.	Orr’s participant flow by stage, gait-analysis n, dose escalation/treatment days, and data for the target frail population	For adjacent evidence, verify the actual participant flow and analysis denominator in its original table; assess the target comparison using a separate eligible population and 52-week results.
25	Not met	Full text not readStored summary read	N25 · Healthy-participant crossoverAre Martens’ motor-function results in healthy participants equivalent to the target frailty comparison?Required	Martens’ crossover trial in healthy middle-aged and older adults reported no improvement in overall motor function. Baseline function and the regimen differ, and no target usual-speed values were reconstructed from the supplementary motor-function figures. S08	The population and regimen differ from the fixed question of frailty, 2,000 mg/day, and 52 weeks. The adjacent trial’s no-difference result is retained, but it is not used as evidence that the target effect is 0.	Exposure, duration, baseline function, usual-speed results, and crossover analysis in the healthy-participant crossover trial	Verify results using the same frail population, exposure, and test; when using crossover data, report period, sequence, and carryover effects and a paired analysis.
26	Not met	Full text not readStored summary read	N26 · Positive PAD resultIs NICE’s +17.6 m an effect on usual gait speed in m/s in the frail population?Required	NICE PAD randomized 90 participants overall. The 6-month between-group result for 6-minute walk distance, +17.6 m, is a positive adjacent result. WIQ speed is a self-reported score; these values are not usual-gait-speed results in m/s for the target frail population. S09	The positive signal is retained, but the population, endpoint, and time point differ from the fixed question. Do not use the 90 randomized overall as the analysis n for the target speed or calculate distance÷time.	NICE’s original 6-minute-walk table and separate usual-speed results for the selected frail population	Measure usual speed separately in the target frail population and report the selected contrast, time point, and denominator.
27	Verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N27 · PAD interval and criterionAre NICE’s one-sided 90% CI and p=0.08 distinguished from its study-specific criterion?Required	NICE’s adjacent distance result is a one-sided 90% CI [+1.77,+∞) m and p=0.08. The manuscript explains that it met the study’s prespecified significance criterion. It was not reclassified as a failure under a universal p<.05 criterion. S09	The manuscript retains the interval type, lower bound, open upper bound, and explanation of the study-specific criterion. This does not mean that statistical or clinical success for the target usual speed has been verified.	NICE’s prespecified statistical criterion, definition of the one-sided interval, and location of the original between-group report	Future direct studies should disclose the prespecified statistical criterion, interval type, and contrast of interest alongside the results, distinguishing these from clinical importance.
28	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N28 · Scope of the correction noticeAre the actual content of the NICE correction notice and its impact on the results verified?Required	The record states that the existence and identifier of the 2024-08-12 NICE publisher correction were verified in the original article’s change history. The content of the correction notice was not acquired at that time. S09 S10	The existence of the correction notice is retained, but its body, what was changed, and its impact on the results are unverified. Do not automatically describe it as a retraction or a correction to an effect estimate.	The original article’s change history, the full correction notice, and links between results/tables before and after the correction	When reviewing materials, compare what the full correction notice changes with the original table and record it. This is a verification task distinct from designing a new clinical trial.
29	Not met	Full text not readStored summary read	N29 · Other moleculesAre NMN, NAM, niacin, and tryptophan materials evidence for NR alone?Required	S13 concerns tryptophan, nicotinic acid, and nicotinamide; S14 concerns NMN. The S17 NICE-FIT title contains nicotinamide. Candidates not verified as NR are not used as direct NR evidence. S13 S14 S17	The retained substance identity differs from the requested NR or is not verified as NR. Positive gait results for NMN also do not verify a direct NR effect because the molecule differs.	The actual active ingredient, product composition, endpoint, and population identity of candidate studies	When checking study eligibility, verify the active molecule, salt, and composition, and design a separate direct study for the NR question.
30	Not met	Full text not readStored summary read	N30 · Combination with exerciseIs the NR+exercise trial in hypertension a contrast of NR alone for gait speed in frailty?Required	S15 is a pilot trial of NR+exercise in middle-aged and older adults with hypertension. The record is of screening at the level of the publisher’s abstract and bibliographic back matter; it was not counted as a direct replication of usual-speed results in the target frail population. S15	The population and concurrent intervention in the screening record differ from the fixed question. Separation of exercise by arm and the target speed results were not verified.	S15’s exercise requirements in both arms, NR contrast, frail stratum, and usual-speed results	Specify the exercise common to both arms and the NR difference, or separate their contributions using a factorial design, and measure usual speed in the target frail stratum.
31	Not met	Full text not readStored summary read	N31 · Species and combination productsDoes the combination-product cognition study in senior dogs address the NR gait question in older humans?Required	S18 concerns a senolytic/NAD-precursor combination and owner-assessed cognition in senior dogs. It was excluded at screening because the species, intervention, and endpoint differ, and no dog effect estimates were used. S18	The actual question in the archived bibliographic record differs from the selected question about gait with NR alone in humans. The title/abstract screening record is not a refutation of human research.	S18’s species, active ingredients, and measured outcomes, and direct evidence in humans	A direct comparison with the target human population, exposure to the single intervention, and a usual-speed test is needed.
32	Unverified	Full text not readStored summary read	N32 · Mechanism and functionAre direct usual-speed results verified separately from NAD increases, SPPB, strength, and fatigue?Required	NAD increases, SPPB, chair rises, strength, fatigue, and usual gait speed are different outcomes. P on the original axis denotes a functional endpoint performed by the patient; it does not mean that a direct effect has been verified. S05 S08 S09	Signals from other measures or the existence of a functional-test battery cannot fill in the between-group difference for the target usual speed. That direct value is currently null.	A report distinguishing direct results for the target usual speed from other functional and biochemical results	Measure the selected usual speed separately from mechanisms and other functions, and prespecify and report each contrast of interest.
33	Unverified	Full text not readStored summary read	N33 · Harms for the target questionAre events, discontinuations, and denominators verified for this plan in the frail population at 2,000 mg/day for 52 weeks?Supplementary; required for expansion to safety	Adverse events, discontinuations, and long-term safety are unverified for the high-dose, long-term plan in the target frail population. Caution in the original safety label does not mean that NR harm has been established. S01 S02	Event frequency or causality cannot be assessed because records are absent for event definitions, systematic/spontaneous collection, exposure denominators, temporal order, discontinuation/recovery, between-arm comparisons, other causes, and missing data.	Arm-specific AE/SAE, numbers of people and events, discontinuations, collection periods, and collection methods for the same population, product, and exposure	In long-term comparisons, collect event definitions, collection schedules, discontinuations, exposure time, concomitant treatments, and arm-specific numbers of people and events. Consider follow-up designs suited to rare events separately.
34	Not met	Full text not readStored summary read	N34 · Scope of official safety assessmentsDoes EFSA’s assessment of specified NR chloride for use at 300 mg/day in healthy adults guarantee safety for the target question?Supplementary; required for expansion to safety	S11/S12 are official safety and use assessments of specified NR chloride. Assessment of use at 300 mg/day in healthy adults is neither a safety guarantee for this frail population’s plan of 2,000 mg/day for 52 weeks nor approval of walking efficacy. S11 S12	The populations, substances, and conditions of use in the official materials are not equivalent to direct safety information for the target plan. The manuscript also did not copy nicotinic-acid flushing or hepatic harm to NR.	The substance, use amount, population, and duration in the EFSA assessment, and direct safety data from the target trial	Separately review long-term safety follow-up appropriate to the target product, dose, and frail population, along with data on concomitant treatments and vulnerable groups.
35	Unverified	Full text not readStored summary read	N35 · Actual concomitant treatments and adherenceAre arm-specific changes in medicines, diet, exercise, rehabilitation, and dose reduction/discontinuation verified?Required	Policies for common medicines, diet, exercise, and rehabilitation in both arms, and actual dosing frequency, dose escalation, adherence, and changes, are unverified. Do not attribute effects of other medicines or rehabilitation to NR. S01 S02	The full registration and actual implementation records have not been verified, so the effects of concurrent changes and discontinuations cannot be assessed. Do not fill these gaps with an absence of concomitant treatment or completed medication use.	Lists and timing of concomitant treatments in both arms, medication adherence, dose reduction/discontinuation, rescue treatment, and analytical handling	Collect the timing of medication changes and concurrent treatments, and explicitly distinguish the effect of assignment, the effect of adherence, and attribution of harms.
36	Not applicable	Full text not readStored summary read	N36 · Extension to dose and persistenceDoes the claim also extend to the optimal dose, maintenance after discontinuation, and effects in other frailty strata?Supplementary; required for extended claims	The current table concerns usual speed under the planned conditions of 2,000 mg/day, 52 weeks, and Fried≥3. It does not establish the optimal dose, persistence after discontinuation, or effects across all frailty strata at the same time. S01 S02	Extended claims are outside the scope of this independent question. Not applicable does not mean that those extended effects are absent or that external full text has been read.	Direct dose comparisons, follow-up after discontinuation, and prespecified subgroup/interaction data needed when making such extended claims	If a new extension question is requested, first define separate questions and plans for dose comparisons, follow-up after discontinuation, and effect modification.
37	Not applicable	Full text not readStored summary read	N37 · Extension to clinical eventsDoes the claim also encompass prevention of falls, hospitalization, and death, and improvement in quality of life?Supplementary; required for extension to clinical events	The original question concerns usual walking function itself. Prevention of falls, hospitalization, and death, and improvement in quality of life are not adjudicated together with it.	Separate clinical events are outside the fixed question. This boundary of non-applicability does not imply an absence of effects on those events, nor does it remove the necessary conditions for the current speed outcome.	Event definitions, observation windows, comparison denominators, and direct estimation data required when making claims about those events	If event prevention becomes a new question, a design with definitions, follow-up, denominators, and comparisons for those events is reviewed separately.
38	Verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N38 · Search scope and 0Do 0 direct results and no_human_study mean that all human NR research amounts to 0?Required	In the logged search as of 2026-09-15, no directly eligible result for the fixed question was verified; that is the meaning of the original 0. human_NR_trials_exist=true and no_human_study=true coexist; the latter has the narrow meaning of a gate for calculator compatibility.	The original grade_semantics specifies the scope. The original ? and null score are preserved, without carrying them over as this table's verification status, an efficacy probability, or a new judgment.	The original search reference date, selection records, and explicit scope within which directly eligible results were checked	Future evidence updates retain the same boundaries, search dates, and eligibility records, and distinguish new results from existing plans and other outcomes.
39	Verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N39 · Reading of materialsAre the currently preserved archived summaries distinguished from external access and full-text reading at that earlier time?Required	This time, the entire KO/EN text, structure, bibliography, and history of the preserved archived summaries, identical to the current source, were read. Report-specific access records dated 2026-09-15 for official indexes, application shells, abstracts, figure legends, HTML, and correction metadata are historical records. External materials have not been accessed or read this time; access has not been attempted. S01 S02 S03 S04 S05 S08 S09 S10 S11 S12 S13 S14 S15 S17 S18	The scope of the current summary reading and the attribution of the historical access descriptions were checked. The existence of publisher, PMC, and official links is distinguished from having read the full text now.	Each report's actual material type, original address, current access-not-attempted/unread status, historical access_level/date, and original location	When materials are acquired, their original locations, access events, dates, and material types are recorded by report, and original summaries are distinguished from directly obtained full texts. This is a method for reviewing materials, separate from a clinical trial proposal.
40	Verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N40 · Preservation of historyWere the original ?, null values, axes, calculations, and publication metadata preserved without a new judgment?Required	Record from the time the preservation table was prepared: The original grade ?, null score, B/P, unscored axes, compatibility boolean, 4 historical arithmetic calculations, document self-review, and publication reference date are preserved. In that record, the original deployed_at was null, and the map current at that time was also not publicly deployed.	Preservation of the original values is neither a new efficacy judgment nor document-quality certification. The preserved arithmetic was performed at that earlier time; no new clinical calculations were performed this time.	The exact original values for the original judgment, unscored axes, historical arithmetic, document quality, and manuscript publication/deployment metadata	Future updates preserve the source bytes before and after changes and the reasons for changes, and distinguish changes in conditions, additions of materials, and new publication events.

No items match your search or filter.

40 itemsWhat the statuses mean

Assessment scope

Stored-material review date: 2026-10-05
Original evidence date: 2026-09-15
Scope actually checked: Retained Korean and English manuscripts and case-specific conditions and application records. Full papers, supplements, registrations, plans and original data were not read.
What the dates mean: This is the date the retained materials were reviewed, not the date of a search for the latest clinical literature.
Population: Community-dwelling adults aged 75 or older with a Fried Frailty Phenotype score of 3 or higher; baseline gait speed and nutritional status unverified
Ingredient, formulation and route: Nicotinamide riboside (NR; salt and product details unverified)
Dose: Planned 2000 mg/day; amount per dose, frequency, dose escalation, and basis for salt conversion unverified
Comparator: Placebo (exact composition, matching method, and common care unverified)
Measured outcome: Between-group difference in change in usual gait speed from baseline to week 52 (m/s); the page's primary endpoint, with its actual trial hierarchy and usual-speed protocol unverified
Duration: Planned 52 weeks; actual exposure and follow-up after discontinuation unverified
Questions outside this scope: 6-minute walk distance and WIQ self-reported speed; Maximal speed, SPPB, muscle strength, fatigue, and chair rise; Cognition and NAD biomarkers; Direct transfer of findings from MCI, healthy participants, PAD, and prefrailty; NMN, NAM, niacin, NAD/NADH, tryptophan, and combination products; Optimal dose, persistence after discontinuation, prevention of falls/death, and individual safety

Evidence and sources

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

S01 · NADage investigators' web description of the plan

Source

Material type: Full text of a web document
Materials actually read: The corresponding Korean and English summaries and bibliographic records in the archived manuscript were read. The linked external source materials have not been read this time.
Findings recorded in the stored summary: This describes the planned population, 2,000 mg/day, 52 weeks, and the 6-minute walk/sensors. It is not an actual result for the target usual speed.
Record level: This is content recorded in the archived manuscript. It is not the result of a new comparison against external source materials this time.
Study overlap and independent replication: This report is linked to family F01. The number of independent replications for this question is unverified.

Public availability, access and reading status by material
Material	Public availability	Access status	Actually read	Notes
Full text of a web document	Currently unverified	Not attempted this time	Unread	Historical access date for this material: 2026-09-15; recorded level: historical public description of the plan. This time, only the archived summaries were read; external access was not attempted, and the external materials were neither acquired nor read.

S02 · NADage official registry index/application shell

Source

Material type: Full registry document
Materials actually read: The corresponding Korean and English summaries and bibliographic records in the archived manuscript were read. The linked external source materials have not been read this time.
Findings recorded in the stored summary: Only the age/Fried criteria and placebo design from the official index are recorded. The full registration, its history, and posted results were not acquired at that time.
Record level: This is content recorded in the archived manuscript. It is not the result of a new comparison against external source materials this time.
Study overlap and independent replication: This report is linked to family F01. The number of independent replications for this question is unverified.

Public availability, access and reading status by material
Material	Public availability	Access status	Actually read	Notes
Full registry document	Currently unverified	Not attempted this time	Unread	Historical access date for this material: 2026-09-15; recorded level: historical official index, body text not acquired. This time, only the archived summaries were read; external access was not attempted, and the external materials were neither acquired nor read.

S03 · NR-VETS official registry index

Source

Material type: Full registry document
Materials actually read: The corresponding Korean and English summaries and bibliographic records in the archived manuscript were read. The linked external source materials have not been read this time.
Findings recorded in the stored summary: This is a limited index of the official title and walking description. The full hierarchy, latest status, and target results are unverified.
Record level: This is content recorded in the archived manuscript. It is not the result of a new comparison against external source materials this time.
Study overlap and independent replication: This report is linked to family F02. The number of independent replications for this question is unverified.

Public availability, access and reading status by material
Material	Public availability	Access status	Actually read	Notes
Full registry document	Currently unverified	Not attempted this time	Unread	Historical access date for this material: 2026-09-15; recorded level: historical official index, body text not acquired. This time, only the archived summaries were read; external access was not attempted, and the external materials were neither acquired nor read.

S04 · NR-VETS institutional recruitment index

Source

Material type: Full text of a web document
Materials actually read: The corresponding Korean and English summaries and bibliographic records in the archived manuscript were read. The linked external source materials have not been read this time.
Findings recorded in the stored summary: The population in the institutional index has Fried<3. It does not match the target frailty criterion, and the complete current materials are unverified.
Record level: This is content recorded in the archived manuscript. It is not the result of a new comparison against external source materials this time.
Study overlap and independent replication: This report is linked to family F02. The number of independent replications for this question is unverified.

Public availability, access and reading status by material
Material	Public availability	Access status	Actually read	Notes
Full text of a web document	Currently unverified	Not attempted this time	Unread	Historical access date for this material: 2026-09-15; recorded level: historical official index, body text not acquired. This time, only the archived summaries were read; external access was not attempted, and the external materials were neither acquired nor read.

S05 · Orr MCI abstract, bibliography, and figure legends

Source

Material type: Article abstract and bibliography
Materials actually read: The corresponding Korean and English summaries and bibliographic records in the archived manuscript were read. The linked external source materials have not been read this time.
Findings recorded in the stored summary: These are within-group p-values for walking in MCI. The 20 completers are not the analysis n for the target usual speed, nor is this a between-group estimate in m/s.
Record level: This is content recorded in the archived manuscript. It is not the result of a new comparison against external source materials this time.
Study overlap and independent replication: This report is linked to family F03. The number of independent replications for this question is unverified.

Public availability, access and reading status by material
Material	Public availability	Access status	Actually read	Notes
Article abstract and bibliography	Currently unverified	Not attempted this time	Unread	Historical access date for this material: 2026-09-15; recorded level: historical abstract, bibliography, and figure legends. This time, only the archived summaries were read; external access was not attempted, and the external materials were neither acquired nor read.
Full text of a clinical research article	Direct full-text URL not acquired; bibliographic lead available	Not attempted this time	Unread	No direct URL for this clinical article's full text has been acquired, and no historical record of accessing its full text is available. The DOI is a bibliographic lead. This time, external full-text access was not attempted, and the full text was neither acquired nor read.

S08 · Martens crossover article in healthy participants

Source

Material type: Full text of a clinical research article
Materials actually read: The corresponding Korean and English summaries and bibliographic records in the archived manuscript were read. The linked external source materials have not been read this time.
Findings recorded in the stored summary: The study reported no overall improvement in motor function in healthy participants. The supplementary figures and usual-speed values were not extracted, and this finding is not transferred as refutation of the target effect in frailty.
Record level: This is content recorded in the archived manuscript. It is not the result of a new comparison against external source materials this time.
Study overlap and independent replication: This report is linked to family F04. The number of independent replications for this question is unverified.

Public availability, access and reading status by material
Material	Public availability	Access status	Actually read	Notes
Full text of a clinical research article	Currently unverified	Not attempted this time	Unread	Historical access date for this material: 2026-09-15; recorded level: historical HTML full text. This time, only the archived summaries were read; external access was not attempted, and the external materials were neither acquired nor read.

S09 · NICE PAD article

Source

Material type: Full text of a clinical research article
Materials actually read: The corresponding Korean and English summaries and bibliographic records in the archived manuscript were read. The linked external source materials have not been read this time.
Findings recorded in the stored summary: The 6-month between-group 6MWD result in PAD of +17.6 m, one-sided 90% CI [+1.77,+∞) m, p=0.08 is a positive adjacent finding. It is not a result for the target usual speed in m/s.
Record level: This is content recorded in the archived manuscript. It is not the result of a new comparison against external source materials this time.
Study overlap and independent replication: This report is linked to family F05. The number of independent replications for this question is unverified.

Public availability, access and reading status by material
Material	Public availability	Access status	Actually read	Notes
Full text of a clinical research article	Currently unverified	Not attempted this time	Unread	Historical access date for this material: 2026-09-15; recorded level: historical HTML full text. This time, only the archived summaries were read; external access was not attempted, and the external materials were neither acquired nor read.

S10 · NICE publisher correction

Source

Material type: Full text of a correction
Materials actually read: The corresponding Korean and English summaries and bibliographic records in the archived manuscript were read. The linked external source materials have not been read this time.
Findings recorded in the stored summary: Only the existence and identifier of the correction were verified at that time. The content of the correction and its impact on the effect are unverified.
Record level: This is content recorded in the archived manuscript. It is not the result of a new comparison against external source materials this time.
Study overlap and independent replication: This report is linked to family F05. The number of independent replications for this question is unverified.

Public availability, access and reading status by material
Material	Public availability	Access status	Actually read	Notes
Full text of a correction	Currently unverified	Not attempted this time	Unread	Historical access date for this material: 2026-09-15; recorded level: historical bibliographic verification, failed access to the body text. This time, only the archived summaries were read; external access was not attempted, and the external materials were neither acquired nor read.

S11 · EFSA 2019 NR chloride safety assessment

Source

Material type: Full text of an official web document
Materials actually read: The corresponding Korean and English summaries and bibliographic records in the archived manuscript were read. The linked external source materials have not been read this time.
Findings recorded in the stored summary: This assesses use of a specified substance in healthy people. It does not guarantee 52-week safety at a high dose in frail participants or efficacy for walking.
Record level: This is content recorded in the archived manuscript. It is not the result of a new comparison against external source materials this time.
Study overlap and independent replication: This report is linked to family REG-EFSA-2019. The number of independent replications for this question is unverified.

Public availability, access and reading status by material
Material	Public availability	Access status	Actually read	Notes
Full text of an official web document	Currently unverified	Not attempted this time	Unread	Historical access date for this material: 2026-09-15; recorded level: historical HTML full text. This time, only the archived summaries were read; external access was not attempted, and the external materials were neither acquired nor read.

S12 · EFSA 2021 assessment of extended uses of NR chloride

Source

Material type: Full text of an official web document
Materials actually read: The corresponding Korean and English summaries and bibliographic records in the archived manuscript were read. The linked external source materials have not been read this time.
Findings recorded in the stored summary: This is an official opinion for specified conditions of use. Those NR chloride conditions are not extrapolated to long-term safety at the target high dose.
Record level: This is content recorded in the archived manuscript. It is not the result of a new comparison against external source materials this time.
Study overlap and independent replication: This report is linked to family REG-EFSA-2021. The number of independent replications for this question is unverified.

Public availability, access and reading status by material
Material	Public availability	Access status	Actually read	Notes
Full text of an official web document	Currently unverified	Not attempted this time	Unread	Historical access date for this material: 2026-09-15; recorded level: historical HTML full text. This time, only the archived summaries were read; external access was not attempted, and the external materials were neither acquired nor read.

S13 · Identification of an article on other NAD precursors

Source

Material type: Full text of a clinical research article
Materials actually read: The corresponding Korean and English summaries and bibliographic records in the archived manuscript were read. The linked external source materials have not been read this time.
Findings recorded in the stored summary: This is identity screening for tryptophan, nicotinic acid, and NAM. These are not NR, and no numbers were newly extracted or reassessed.
Record level: This is content recorded in the archived manuscript. It is not the result of a new comparison against external source materials this time.
Study overlap and independent replication: This report is linked to family ADJ-CONNELL. The number of independent replications for this question is unverified.

Public availability, access and reading status by material
Material	Public availability	Access status	Actually read	Notes
Full text of a clinical research article	Currently unverified	Not attempted this time	Unread	Historical access date for this material: 2026-09-15; recorded level: historical bibliographic index of the original article. This time, only the archived summaries were read; external access was not attempted, and the external materials were neither acquired nor read.

S14 · Identification of an NMN article in healthy older men

Source

Material type: Full text of a clinical research article
Materials actually read: The corresponding Korean and English summaries and bibliographic records in the archived manuscript were read. The linked external source materials have not been read this time.
Findings recorded in the stored summary: NMN is not NR. Positive walking data are not transferred to the target molecule.
Record level: This is content recorded in the archived manuscript. It is not the result of a new comparison against external source materials this time.
Study overlap and independent replication: This report is linked to family ADJ-IGARASHI. The number of independent replications for this question is unverified.

Public availability, access and reading status by material
Material	Public availability	Access status	Actually read	Notes
Full text of a clinical research article	Currently unverified	Not attempted this time	Unread	Historical access date for this material: 2026-09-15; recorded level: historical HTML title-and-abstract screening. This time, only the archived summaries were read; external access was not attempted, and the external materials were neither acquired nor read.

S15 · Publisher abstract on NR+exercise in hypertension

Source

Material type: Article abstract and bibliography
Materials actually read: The corresponding Korean and English summaries and bibliographic records in the archived manuscript were read. The linked external source materials have not been read this time.
Findings recorded in the stored summary: This is screening material on a combined intervention involving exercise in hypertension. It is not a direct replication for usual speed in frailty.
Record level: This is content recorded in the archived manuscript. It is not the result of a new comparison against external source materials this time.
Study overlap and independent replication: This report is linked to family ADJ-LIN. The number of independent replications for this question is unverified.

Public availability, access and reading status by material
Material	Public availability	Access status	Actually read	Notes
Article abstract and bibliography	Currently unverified	Not attempted this time	Unread	Historical access date for this material: 2026-09-15; recorded level: historical publisher abstract and later sections. This time, only the archived summaries were read; external access was not attempted, and the external materials were neither acquired nor read.
Full text of a clinical research article	Direct full-text URL not acquired; bibliographic lead available	Not attempted this time	Unread	No direct URL for this clinical article's full text has been acquired, and no historical record of accessing its full text is available. The DOI is a bibliographic lead. This time, external full-text access was not attempted, and the full text was neither acquired nor read.

S17 · NICE-FIT official registry title

Source

Material type: Full registry document
Materials actually read: The corresponding Korean and English summaries and bibliographic records in the archived manuscript were read. The linked external source materials have not been read this time.
Findings recorded in the stored summary: The substance in the title is nicotinamide. NR identity, product, and results are unverified, so this is not used as direct NR evidence.
Record level: This is content recorded in the archived manuscript. It is not the result of a new comparison against external source materials this time.
Study overlap and independent replication: This report is linked to family ADJ-NICE-FIT. The number of independent replications for this question is unverified.

Public availability, access and reading status by material
Material	Public availability	Access status	Actually read	Notes
Full registry document	Currently unverified	Not attempted this time	Unread	Historical access date for this material: 2026-09-15; recorded level: historical official index title. This time, only the archived summaries were read; external access was not attempted, and the external materials were neither acquired nor read.

S18 · Identification of an article on a combination intervention and cognition in older dogs

Source

Material type: Full text of a nonhuman research article
Materials actually read: The corresponding Korean and English summaries and bibliographic records in the archived manuscript were read. The linked external source materials have not been read this time.
Findings recorded in the stored summary: The species, intervention, and endpoint do not match: older dogs, a combination product, and owner assessments of cognition. Effect estimates in dogs were not used.
Record level: This is content recorded in the archived manuscript. It is not the result of a new comparison against external source materials this time.
Study overlap and independent replication: This report is linked to family ADJ-DOG. The number of independent replications for this question is unverified.

Public availability, access and reading status by material
Material	Public availability	Access status	Actually read	Notes
Full text of a nonhuman research article	Currently unverified	Not attempted this time	Unread	Historical access date for this material: 2026-09-15; recorded level: historical HTML title-and-abstract screening. This time, only the archived summaries were read; external access was not attempted, and the external materials were neither acquired nor read.

Report counts versus independent study counts

The 5 families of plans and adjacent trials and the 15 reports do not represent a count of direct usual-speed trials, an effect of 0, or a count of independent replications. Despite the S05–S07 range notation, individual S06/S07 entries are absent from the current citation list. The numbers of unique eligible trials, participants, and independent replications are unverified.

Review criteria

Version NGM-v3093-NR-FRAIL-USUAL-GAIT-1.0 · Criteria record date 2026-10-05. These are Chamgap's own application conditions, informed by the referenced methods. They do not constitute official assessment-tool certification or a new efficacy score.

N01 · Does the table address only the between-group change in usual gait speed in frail older adults?

Required materials and conditions: Explicit boundaries of the original claim, population, planned oral NR, placebo, and change in usual speed at 52 weeks
Conditions for verification: Link the original /ko/effect to the question identity and identify 6-minute walk distance, muscle strength, cognition, and NAD results as separate questions.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: If the frailty definition or endpoint actually changes, reassess whether separation is needed while retaining the link to the same original ID. Do not automatically create a new table for another combination.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid combining the ingredient's overall functions or different walking endpoints into a single effect.
Referenced methods: Principles for clarifying the question in M03 §3.1, §3.2.1–3.2.4; detailed separation rules are internally designed / M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptation is internally designed

N02 · Are the NR salt, product, dosage form, and batch in the plan verified?

Required materials and conditions: Documentation of the exact NR salt, product, manufacturer, assayed purity, batch, and release form in NADage
Conditions for verification: Verify the identity of the substance actually used in this plan; do not substitute NIAGEN or NR chloride information from another trial.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: If the original source does not clarify the relationship between salt mass and active-moiety amount, retain the reported mg without conversion.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid directly transferring results and safety findings from different salts, dosage forms, or products.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction labeling and test adaptation are internally designed

N03 · Are other active ingredients or exercise packages separated from the NR-versus-placebo comparison?

Required materials and conditions: Full product composition and rules for exercise, rehabilitation, diet, and active-ingredient use in both groups
Conditions for verification: Verify that the selected contrast is the difference between NR and placebo; do not attribute combined active ingredients or differences in exercise between groups to NR alone.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: The comparison can be retained even when common care is present if its role in both groups is verified. Do not assume that all concomitant interventions were absent.
Why this condition is needed: Needed because differences in other active ingredients or rehabilitation may be mixed with the planned contribution of NR.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction labeling and test adaptation are internally designed / M03 §3.2.3, M08 §8.2.2–8.2.3; internal application

N04 · Are the criteria of age 75 or older and Fried score 3 or higher, and the population actually selected, verified?

Required materials and conditions: Full eligibility criteria, selection flow, Fried components, and actual baseline characteristics table
Conditions for verification: Distinguish the plan's age and frailty criteria read in the official index from whether the population actually recruited and analyzed matches those criteria.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: If data from a mixed population are available, retain the definition of the frail subgroup and its separate results. Do not discard results from other populations or combine them as direct results.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid confusing older age alone, prefrailty, MCI, or PAD with the fixed frailty criteria.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.1; detailed population conditions are internally designed

N05 · Are baseline usual speed, nutrition, and deficiency status verified?

Required materials and conditions: Data on baseline gait speed, nutrition and dietary assessment, deficiency testing, medications, and walking aids
Conditions for verification: Verify the actual baseline speed and nutrition-related selection criteria; do not substitute deficiency correction or healthy-participant results for this frailty question.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not newly impose a deficiency-treatment condition on a trial that did not select participants for deficiency. Retain deficiency status as unverified.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid interpreting results from people with different baseline function or nutritional status as having the same scope of applicability.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.1; detailed population conditions are internally designed / M03 §3.2.1–3.2.4; details concerning dose, persistence, and effect modification are internally designed

N06 · Does 2,000 mg/day represent a value for which the actual intake and dosing schedule are also verified?

Required materials and conditions: Amount per dose, frequency, dose escalation, basis for salt conversion, and actual medication-taking and adherence records
Conditions for verification: Distinguish the daily amount in the reported plan from actual exposure; do not invent an unknown amount per dose or adherence level.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not calculate a new mass or salt conversion or an optimal dose. Distinguish information that may exist in the original paper from what remains unverified in the current input.
Why this condition is needed: Needed because confusing the nominal dose with the exposure actually received changes how efficacy and safety apply.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction labeling and test adaptation are internally designed / M03 §3.2.3, M08 §8.2.2–8.2.3; internal application

N07 · Is the 52-week plan linked to actual exposure, measurement, and follow-up after discontinuation?

Required materials and conditions: Records of actual initiation, discontinuation, the week 52 visit, observation windows, and follow-up after discontinuation
Conditions for verification: Do not turn the planned 52 weeks of treatment and assessment into actual visits or a subsequent maintenance effect.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not make all post-treatment follow-up studies mandatory for the current question. Separate the 52-week result from a distinct claim of persistence.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to distinguish the original question's change at 52 weeks from short-term effects or effects after discontinuation.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction labeling and test adaptation are internally designed / M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptation is internally designed / M03 §3.2.1–3.2.4; details concerning dose, persistence, and effect modification are internally designed

N08 · Are the placebo composition, matching method, and common care in both groups verified?

Required materials and conditions: Placebo composition, appearance/sensory matching, and rules for common medications, diet, exercise, and rehabilitation
Conditions for verification: Distinguish the existence of a placebo plan from verification of the actual composition, blinding, and common care.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not conclude that an unverified composition means the placebo was absent or blinding failed.
Why this condition is needed: The actual content of the control must be clear to distinguish NR's contribution to the comparison from influences on measurement.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction labeling and test adaptation are internally designed / M03 §3.2.3, M08 §8.2.2–8.2.3; internal application / M08 Table 8.2.a, M03 §3.2.4; internal application

N09 · Are the actual implementation and concealment of the randomized, double-blind plan verified?

Required materials and conditions: Full protocol, allocation-sequence generation/concealment, and data on actual allocation and baseline balance
Conditions for verification: Distinguish the design label from actual allocation implementation; do not describe unverified implementation as actual nonimplementation.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not replace an unverified design status with nonapplicability of crossover or cluster designs. Retain the plan and actual implementation separately.
Why this condition is needed: Needed because the label of a planned RCT alone does not establish that an actual causal comparison was implemented.
Referenced methods: M08 §8.1–8.2.3; internal application

N10 · Are the test distance, acceleration section, repetitions, and instrument for usual speed verified?

Required materials and conditions: Usual-speed measurement manual, walking aids, assessors, repetitions, and unit definitions
Conditions for verification: Verify the actual m/s test method for habitual/comfortable pace; do not substitute maximal speed or endurance speed.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not assume measurement is free of problems because the test is objective. Do not declare that information is unreported throughout the original source merely because it is absent from the plan.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent differences in measurement methods from being mixed with actual functional change.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptation is internally designed / M08 Table 8.2.a, M03 §3.2.4; internal application

N11 · Is NADage's 6-minute walk with concurrent sensors the same endpoint as usual speed over a short course?

Required materials and conditions: Definitions of the 6-minute walk/sensors and data on equivalence with the usual-speed test and separately reported results
Conditions for verification: Do not currently equate the planned 6-minute walk with usual gait speed; require actual verification of equivalence or a separate result.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not deem it equivalent to comfortable walking over a short course merely because sensors collect speed.
Why this condition is needed: This is a key endpoint condition for upgrading the closest study to direct evidence of the effect.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptation is internally designed / M08 Table 8.2.a, M03 §3.2.4; internal application

N12 · Are the page's usual gait speed endpoint and its actual trial hierarchy as primary, secondary or post hoc verified?

Required materials and conditions: The hierarchy of usual gait speed and reasons for changes in dated registration histories, protocols and analysis plans
Conditions for verification: Do not turn the page's single primary endpoint and the investigator page's description of the 6-minute walk as primary into a primary usual gait speed outcome within the trial.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not treat failure to acquire the registration history as confirmation of nonregistration or selective reporting.
Why this condition is needed: The editor's chosen question must be distinguished from the original trial's prespecified outcome selection.
Referenced methods: M08 Table 8.2.a, M04 §4.6.3; project-specific application / M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; adaptation of outcomes to each question is project-specific

N13 · Are the planned 100 participants distinguished from the actual enrolled, randomized, completed and usual gait speed analysis counts?

Required materials and conditions: Participant flow diagram; enrollment, allocation and completion by group; usual gait speed analysis denominators and reasons for exclusion
Conditions for verification: Do not use planned enrollment as the outcome analysis n; link the actual denominators at each stage.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not create a recruitment status or analysis count at the cutoff solely from historical wording that enrollment had actually begun.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid claiming precision of an effect or completion on the basis of a planned number.
Referenced methods: M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; adaptation by study design is project-specific

N14 · Can the latest recruitment and results-posting status as of the reference date be verified?

Required materials and conditions: NCT06208527 registration history, status and posted results documents as of the relevant reference date
Conditions for verification: Distinguish the historical description of recruitment starting and the registry index from the actual status/posted results as of the reference date.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Distinguish the current status of access not attempted from the failure to acquire the body text at that earlier time. Do not use a valid response with 0 results or an unverified status to mean that research does not exist.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid wrongly attributing generic wording on the registry screen to the trial's actual progress.
Referenced methods: M04 §4.5–4.6 principles for data collection/selection; separation of access from reading and the hyperlink contract are project-specific / M04 §4.5, §4.6.3; limits on conversion of current materials follow the user's scope and project-specific design / M08 Table 8.2.a, M04 §4.6.3; project-specific application

N15 · Are the actual between-group analysis, ITT/PP and adjustment for usual gait speed verified?

Required materials and conditions: Documents defining the estimand of interest, analysis population, model, adjustment and actual results
Conditions for verification: Distinguish the question of the NR−placebo effect of assignment on change from baseline to 52 weeks from the actual analysis.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not fill unverified analysis information with an arbitrary ITT, complete-case or PP analysis.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid treating within-group change, the effect of adherence and the planned effect of assignment as the same actual between-group value.
Referenced methods: M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; project-specific application

N16 · Who was missing from the 52-week speed measurement, and how was this handled?

Required materials and conditions: Missed visits, discontinuation, death/illness, inability to measure, handling of missingness and sensitivity analyses by group
Conditions for verification: Link actual measurement and analysis denominators to reasons for missingness; do not turn unverified information into no attrition or 0 events.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not turn the possibility of missingness into a confirmed magnitude of actual bias or a finding that the trial is invalid.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to distinguish values from only those with measured outcomes from the effect of assignment during long-term observation of frail participants.
Referenced methods: M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; adaptation by study design is project-specific / M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; project-specific application

N17 · Are direct usual gait speed changes, the between-group difference and CI verified?

Required materials and conditions: Group-specific original usual gait speed values/changes, between-group estimate and CI for the fixed population, exposure and time point
Conditions for verification: Link the m/s result corresponding to the original question; if absent, leave the value null.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not convert distance, within-group P values or NAD values into a direct between-group effect in m/s.
Why this condition is needed: This is a key condition for distinguishing the existence of direct results from plans and adjacent numerical findings.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; adaptation of outcomes to each question is project-specific / M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; project-specific application

N18 · Are the SD, SE, covariance and interval type for the target change verified?

Required materials and conditions: Variance type, analysis n and model for usual gait speed change, and the reported between-group interval
Conditions for verification: Use only variance and intervals belonging to the direct result; do not import SD or a one-sided CI from another trial.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not use an assumed variance in a plan as an actually observed variance. Do not make a broad declaration of nonreporting by saying it is absent from the original text either.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid creating a nonexistent interval by combining numerical values with different variance types or targets.
Referenced methods: M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; adaptation by study design is project-specific / M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; project-specific application

N19 · Is a clinically important between-group difference appropriate to this frail population and test verified?

Required materials and conditions: Evidence for a clinically important between-group difference for the relevant frail population and usual gait speed protocol
Conditions for verification: Distinguish statistical success from clinical importance, and do not set an unsupported common MCID, minimum participant count or duration.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Because the usual gait speed value itself is the original question, do not impose a separate mortality trial as a prerequisite for that value.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid equating nominal statistical significance with a clinically important improvement in usual gait speed.
Referenced methods: M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; project-specific application

N20 · Are the plan's funding, product provision and authors' conflicts of interest directly verified?

Required materials and conditions: NADage's original funding information, product provision, author roles, and patent/employment/declared conflicts of interest
Conditions for verification: Separate the existence of a funding description from full verification of provision/conflicts of interest, and do not assign an independence score to a missing result.
Requirement and applicability: Supplementary; required for a claim of independence
Application exceptions: Do not exclude a result solely because a conflict of interest exists. Do not use unverified information as evidence of independence.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid inferring independent funding or manufacturer involvement from an unverified supply chain.
Referenced methods: Chamgap's own conditions for independence and attribution. The official methods sections used in this pilot do not endorse all of these detailed items

N21 · Are plans, papers, registrations and corrections kept from being double-counted as independent trials of effect?

Required materials and conditions: A mapping of report identifiers, native F01–F05 relationships, and eligible results/endpoints/time points
Conditions for verification: Group the investigator page and registration for the same plan, and papers/corrections for the same trial, leaving unresolved unique trial and participant counts null.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: If bibliographic details or report families are unresolved, retain provisional relationships and omissions; do not create new reports.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid erasing gaps by counting materials as human trials or replication confirmations.
Referenced methods: M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2 distinction between studies and reports; cohort/outcome linkage is a project-specific application / M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2, M15 §15.3.1; project-specific application

N22 · Is the NR-VETS population the same as the selected frail population with Fried scores of 3 or higher?

Required materials and conditions: Complete NR-VETS eligibility criteria, amendment history and usual gait speed results by frailty stratum
Conditions for verification: Distinguish the Fried<3 description in the currently retained official institutional index from the selected frailty criterion, leaving the latest amendments or target-stratum results unverified.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Reconsider eligibility if the latest complete registration is acquired and shows population amendments or separate results.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid repurposing prefrail or non-frail results as direct results for the target frail population.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.1; detailed population conditions are project-specific / M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2, M15 §15.3.1; project-specific application

N23 · Are Orr's two p-values a between-group effect on usual gait speed in frail participants?

Required materials and conditions: Orr's gait test, actual between-group m/s estimate/CI and results tables by population
Conditions for verification: Do not read the respective within-group p-values for placebo and NR as a between-group test or a result for the target frail population.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Retain within-group p-values as original adjacent results, but do not calculate a new difference or CI.
Why this condition is needed: Within-group contrasts must be distinguished from an actual between-group difference.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; adaptation of outcomes to each question is project-specific / M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; project-specific application / M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2, M15 §15.3.1; project-specific application

N24 · Are Orr's actual completion count, gait analysis denominator and dosing schedule verified?

Required materials and conditions: Orr’s participant flow by stage, gait-analysis n, dose escalation/treatment days, and data for the target frail population
Conditions for verification: Do not repurpose the 20 completers or descriptions of schedules from other trials as the analysis denominator or 52-week duration for the target usual gait speed.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Detailed counts that may appear in another retained assessment of the same Orr family are not automatically imported into this manuscript.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent the completed counts and schedules of adjacent trials from being imported as the exposure and denominator for the direct question.
Referenced methods: M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; adaptations by study design are internally designed / M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction labeling and test adaptations are internally designed / M03 §3.2.1–3.2.4; details on dose, persistence, and effect modification are internally designed

N25 · Are Martens’ motor-function results in healthy participants equivalent to the target frailty comparison?

Required materials and conditions: Exposure, duration, baseline function, usual-speed results, and crossover analysis in the healthy-participant crossover trial
Conditions for verification: Do not aggregate statements of no difference in motor function among healthy participants as repeated refutations of the target frailty comparison.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Retain the original crossover design, but do not estimate the paired variance for the target usual speed from these data.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to retain the existence of contrary results while preventing refutation in a different population from being transferred to this question.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.1; detailed population criteria are internally designed / M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; separation of statuses is internally designed / M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; internal application / M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2, M15 §15.3.1; internal application

N26 · Is NICE’s +17.6 m an effect on usual gait speed in m/s in the frail population?

Required materials and conditions: NICE’s original 6-minute-walk table and separate usual-speed results for the selected frail population
Conditions for verification: Retain the positive 6-month result for 6-minute walk distance in its original unit, population, and contrast; do not divide by time to create a usual-speed result.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Attribute the original +17.6 m and the historical 7.0−(−10.6) cross-check only to that PAD distance result.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to retain positive adjacent results without elevating them to direct efficacy evidence.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; adaptations of outcomes to each question are internally designed / M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; adaptations by study design are internally designed / M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; separation of statuses is internally designed / M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2, M15 §15.3.1; internal application

N27 · Are NICE’s one-sided 90% CI and p=0.08 distinguished from its study-specific criterion?

Required materials and conditions: NICE’s prespecified statistical criterion, definition of the one-sided interval, and location of the original between-group report
Conditions for verification: Do not convert the reported one-sided 90% interval’s lower bound and open upper bound +∞, or p=0.08, into a two-sided 95% interval or a CI in the target m/s unit.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not calculate a new two-sided CI, standardized effect, or MCID. Verify only at the level of the explanation in the manuscript at that time.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid changing the meaning by misrepresenting the adjacent study’s interval type and study-specific criterion.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; adaptations of outcomes to each question are internally designed / M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; separation of statuses is internally designed / M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; internal application / M08 Table 8.2.a, M04 §4.6.3; internal application

N28 · Are the actual content of the NICE correction notice and its impact on the results verified?

Required materials and conditions: The original article’s change history, the full correction notice, and links between results/tables before and after the correction
Conditions for verification: Distinguish the correction notice’s existence/DOI from its content, and do not speculate about what was corrected.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not label the lack of an attempt this time as an actual access failure at that earlier time.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent bibliographic information about a correction from being overstated as a review of its content or verification of changes to results.
Referenced methods: M04 §4.5–4.6 principles for data collection/selection; separation of access from reading and the hyperlink contract are internally designed / M04 §4.5, §4.6.3; limits on conversion to current materials derive from the user-defined scope and internal design / M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; separation of statuses is internally designed

N29 · Are NMN, NAM, niacin, and tryptophan materials evidence for NR alone?

Required materials and conditions: The actual active ingredient, product composition, endpoint, and population identity of candidate studies
Conditions for verification: Do not use other molecules as synonyms for NR, and do not change nicotinamide in the NICE-FIT title to NR.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not elevate a record of screening the substance from the title to verification of the full product composition or reading of the full results text.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent distinct exposures from being merged under the collective term NAD precursors.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction labeling and test adaptations are internally designed / M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2, M15 §15.3.1; internal application

N30 · Is the NR+exercise trial in hypertension a contrast of NR alone for gait speed in frailty?

Required materials and conditions: S15’s exercise requirements in both arms, NR contrast, frail stratum, and usual-speed results
Conditions for verification: Distinguish the combination with aerobic exercise in participants with hypertension from the target contrast of NR alone versus placebo.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not state that review of the full results and exercise control is complete on the basis of screening only the publisher’s abstract.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid confusing the contribution of exercise with that of NR alone.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.1; detailed population criteria are internally designed / M03 §3.2.3, M08 §8.2.2–8.2.3; internal application / M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2, M15 §15.3.1; internal application

N31 · Does the combination-product cognition study in senior dogs address the NR gait question in older humans?

Required materials and conditions: S18’s species, active ingredients, and measured outcomes, and direct evidence in humans
Conditions for verification: Do not transfer combination-product and owner-assessed cognition results in dogs to usual speed with NR alone in humans.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Retain nonhuman materials as identity-screening records, but do not add them to the count of human trials.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent automatic attribution of nonhuman, combination-product, and other-function data to this question.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.1; detailed population criteria are internally designed / M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction labeling and test adaptations are internally designed / M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; adaptations of outcomes to each question are internally designed

N32 · Are direct usual-speed results verified separately from NAD increases, SPPB, strength, and fatigue?

Required materials and conditions: A report distinguishing direct results for the target usual speed from other functional and biochemical results
Conditions for verification: Do not substitute mechanism or other tests for the selected functional endpoint, or vice versa; require direct results for this question.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Because the functional score itself is the original question, do not require separate death events as a prerequisite for that value.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent mechanism and function from automatically being interpreted as the same outcome.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; adaptations of outcomes to each question are internally designed / M03 §3.2.4; internally defined scope-expansion boundary

N33 · Are events, discontinuations, and denominators verified for this plan in the frail population at 2,000 mg/day for 52 weeks?

Required materials and conditions: Arm-specific AE/SAE, numbers of people and events, discontinuations, collection periods, and collection methods for the same population, product, and exposure
Conditions for verification: Distinguish an efficacy plan from direct safety data, and do not record unverified events as 0 or as confirmation of safety.
Requirement and applicability: Supplementary; required for expansion to safety
Application exceptions: Even if a signal without a denominator is added, do not convert it into an incidence rate; retain separate efficacy and harm statuses.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent data gaps from being elevated to a guarantee of safety or confirmation of NR harm.
Referenced methods: M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; internal application / M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; detailed distinctions are internally designed / M19 §19.2 harm questions by study design; details of temporal relationships are internally designed / M19 §19.2.2–19.2.4, M03 §3.2.3; internal application / M19 §19.2.2–19.2.4 design considerations; detailed confounding records are internally designed / M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4, M04 §4.6.3; internal application / Chamgap’s own interpretive boundary. References M19 principles; not an application of an official causality tool

N34 · Does EFSA’s assessment of specified NR chloride for use at 300 mg/day in healthy adults guarantee safety for the target question?

Required materials and conditions: The substance, use amount, population, and duration in the EFSA assessment, and direct safety data from the target trial
Conditions for verification: State the scope of the official use assessment, and do not transfer assessments of different substances, doses, or populations to the overall safety of the target plan.
Requirement and applicability: Supplementary; required for expansion to safety
Application exceptions: Official documents are not independent new events or trials; do not double-count safety data they cite again. Do not use a use assessment as personal dosing instructions.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid extending the authority of an official assessment to a guarantee of safety for all other exposures.
Referenced methods: M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; internal application / M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2; adaptations of harm data are internally designed / Chamgap’s own interpretive boundary. References M19 principles; not an application of an official causality tool

N35 · Are arm-specific changes in medicines, diet, exercise, rehabilitation, and dose reduction/discontinuation verified?

Required materials and conditions: Lists and timing of concomitant treatments in both arms, medication adherence, dose reduction/discontinuation, rescue treatment, and analytical handling
Conditions for verification: Connect differences in actual exposure and concurrent treatments to interpretation of results and safety, and do not confirm actual implementation from planned rules alone.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not exclude solely because concomitant treatment is present; compare differences between arms, the contrast of interest, and handling methods.
Why this condition is needed: Concurrent exposures, selection, and losses must be distinguished when attributing the actual effect of interest and harms.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.3, M08 §8.2.2–8.2.3; internal application / M19 §19.2.2–19.2.4 design considerations; detailed confounding records are internally designed / M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4, M04 §4.6.3; internal application

N36 · Does the claim also extend to the optimal dose, maintenance after discontinuation, and effects in other frailty strata?

Required materials and conditions: Direct dose comparisons, follow-up after discontinuation, and prespecified subgroup/interaction data needed when making such extended claims
Conditions for verification: Separate the narrow planned contrast from effects at other doses, after discontinuation, and in subgroups; do not require extension trials unnecessary for the current question.
Requirement and applicability: Supplementary; required for extended claims
Application exceptions: Actual 52-week results for the original question are needed. Separate evidence of maintenance effects after discontinuation is not imposed as a mandatory requirement for this table.
Why this condition is needed: A boundary condition to prevent a narrow result from being extended to optimal treatment, maintenance, or all subgroups.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.1–3.2.4; details on dose, persistence, and effect modification are internally designed

N37 · Does the claim also encompass prevention of falls, hospitalization, and death, and improvement in quality of life?

Required materials and conditions: Event definitions, observation windows, comparison denominators, and direct estimation data required when making claims about those events
Conditions for verification: Direct evidence on other clinical events and quality of life is addressed separately from the usual-speed question.
Requirement and applicability: Supplementary; required for extension to clinical events
Application exceptions: A mortality trial is not uniformly required for a question about change in usual speed itself. If the claim is extended, separate direct-evidence conditions are fixed.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to prevent a functional-measurement question from automatically being extended to prevention of separate events.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.4; internally designed boundaries for extensions / M03 §3.1, §3.2.1–3.2.4 principles for clarifying the question; detailed separation rules are internally designed

N38 · Do 0 direct results and no_human_study mean that all human NR research amounts to 0?

Required materials and conditions: The original search reference date, selection records, and explicit scope within which directly eligible results were checked
Conditions for verification: The scope of the original 0 and the compatibility boolean is preserved, without extending it to 0 effect, 0 human studies, or worldwide absence.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: The original log files and ZIP were not opened this time, so the search as of the reference date is neither rerun nor presented as a current, up-to-date comprehensive review.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed so that the different meanings of the numeric value 0 and the historical boolean do not produce a false declaration of absence.
Referenced methods: M04 §4.5, §4.6.3; limits on the current data transformation follow the user's scope and internal design / M03 §3.1, §3.2.1–3.2.4 principles for clarifying the question; detailed separation rules are internally designed

N39 · Are the currently preserved archived summaries distinguished from external access and full-text reading at that earlier time?

Required materials and conditions: Each report's actual material type, original address, current access-not-attempted/unread status, historical access_level/date, and original location
Conditions for verification: Reading the local summaries now is not presented as current reading of external abstracts, full texts, or registrations; historical access levels are kept separate for each report.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Current access that was not attempted is not labeled as failed. A historical description of full-text access is not copied to another material type for the same article.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid confusing links, historical access records, and local summaries with current full-text reading.
Referenced methods: M04 §4.5–4.6 principles for data collection/selection; the separation of access from reading and the hyperlink contract are internally designed / M04 §4.5, §4.6.3; limits on the current data transformation follow the user's scope and internal design

N40 · Were the original ?, null values, axes, calculations, and publication metadata preserved without a new judgment?

Required materials and conditions: The exact original values for the original judgment, unscored axes, historical arithmetic, document quality, and manuscript publication/deployment metadata
Conditions for verification: Native typed values and historical records are preserved in their original form, without elevating them to new efficacy or safety grades, check scores, or completed publication.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Values, grades, and reading scopes from other current judgments are not carried over to this table. The original ? is not used as a simple substitute label for unread materials.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to prevent the status of the table conversion from being misread as an existing grade, a calculated value, or a public publication event.
Referenced methods: M04 §4.5, §4.6.3; limits on the current data transformation follow the user's scope and internal design / M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; separation of statuses is internally designed

Referenced methods and the sections actually reviewed

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

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

Referenced principle: Clearly record the question, eligibility conditions, and reasons for changes, and distinguish variations in interventions.
Extent of review: Reuse of actual original-byte/SHA copies of the methodological files preserved from the 1585 pilot. The full methodological texts were not newly read this time, nor were the official methods implemented in full.

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

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

Referenced principle: Distinguish studies from reports and link them; do not exclude a study solely because its results are unreported.
Extent of review: Reuse of actual original-byte/SHA copies of the methodological files preserved from the 1585 pilot. The full methodological texts were not newly read this time, nor were the official methods implemented in full.

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

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

Referenced principle: Fix the outcome and effect of interest when reviewing randomization, deviations, missingness, measurement, and selective reporting.
Extent of review: Reuse of actual original-byte/SHA copies of the methodological files preserved from the 1585 pilot. The full methodological texts were not newly read this time, nor were the official methods implemented in full.

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

Official methodology · §15.2.4, §15.3.1–15.3.3

Referenced principle: Distinguish effect estimates, intervals, importance, and applicability. Precision is not determined by sample size alone.
Extent of review: Reuse of actual original-byte/SHA copies of the methodological files preserved from the 1585 pilot. The full methodological texts were not newly read this time, nor were the official methods implemented in full.

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

Official methodology · §19.1.2, §19.2.1–19.2.4

Referenced principle: Questions about harms may require designs, populations, and follow-up that differ from those for efficacy. Case reports do not establish incidence rates.
Extent of review: Reuse of actual original-byte/SHA copies of the methodological files preserved from the 1585 pilot. The full methodological texts were not newly read this time, nor were the official methods implemented in full.

What the statuses mean

Verified: Verification of the stated question and boundaries in the preserved materials; not confirmation of efficacy or safety.
Partly verified: Only some information has been verified; the full set of necessary conditions remains unverified.
Unverified: Direct materials, methods, and results within the scope of the current input are unverified. This does not mean that studies are absent or that the intervention is ineffective.
Not met: The actual population, endpoint, or exposure in the materials does not match the fixed question. This is not a judgment of efficacy failure.
Not applicable: An extension condition outside the narrow question. This status must not be used in place of recording that a full text has not been read.

Change history

2026-11-01 · Public page/material version 1.0

Public-facing display and data were created from the existing 40 items. No new clinical searches, changes in verification status, or scoring were performed.

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

Researcher downloads

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

View all item details

N01 · Does the table address only the between-group change in usual gait speed in frail older adults?

Current findings: The original claim is improvement of usual gait speed in frail older adults. The single question addresses community-dwelling adults aged 75 or older with a Fried score of 3 or higher, a planned oral NR regimen of 2,000 mg/day for 52 weeks versus placebo, and change in usual speed (m/s).
Verification status: Verified
Materials actually read: The native summaries and values in the retained manuscript were read. External papers, official documents, and registrations remain unread in the current review.
Why unverified: The claim boundaries are specified in the identity of the retained assessment question. Verification of these boundaries does not verify a completed trial yielding that result or verify efficacy.
Reason for missing information: The claim boundaries are specified in the identity of the retained assessment question. Verification of these boundaries does not verify a completed trial yielding that result or verify efficacy.
Required materials and conditions: Explicit boundaries of the original claim, population, planned oral NR, placebo, and change in usual speed at 52 weeks
Materials to obtain first: Explicit boundaries of the original claim, population, planned oral NR, placebo, and change in usual speed at 52 weeks
Further research: In a new study, specify usual speed as a single outcome of interest and prespecify the population, comparison, measurement time points, and analysis.
Remaining uncertainty: The claim boundaries are specified in the identity of the retained assessment question. Verification of these boundaries does not verify a completed trial yielding that result or verify efficacy.
Conditions for verification: Link the original /ko/effect to the question identity and identify 6-minute walk distance, muscle strength, cognition, and NAD results as separate questions.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid combining the ingredient's overall functions or different walking endpoints into a single effect.
Application exceptions: If the frailty definition or endpoint actually changes, reassess whether separation is needed while retaining the link to the same original ID. Do not automatically create a new table for another combination.
Referenced methods: Principles for clarifying the question in M03 §3.1, §3.2.1–3.2.4; detailed separation rules are internally designed / M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptation is internally designed

Related sources S01 S02

N02 · Are the NR salt, product, dosage form, and batch in the plan verified?

Current findings: The ingredient is retained as NR, but its salt, crystal form, brand, manufacturer, manufacturing source, dosage form, purity, batch, and release form are unverified. NIAGEN information from another trial was not copied into this plan.
Verification status: Unverified
Materials actually read: The native summaries and values in the retained manuscript were read. External papers, official documents, and registrations remain unread in the current review.
Why unverified: The retained identity fields are null or unverified. The molecular name NR alone cannot verify an identical salt, product, or basis for exposure conversion.
Reason for missing information: The retained identity fields are null or unverified. The molecular name NR alone cannot verify an identical salt, product, or basis for exposure conversion.
Required materials and conditions: Documentation of the exact NR salt, product, manufacturer, assayed purity, batch, and release form in NADage
Materials to obtain first: Documentation of the exact NR salt, product, manufacturer, assayed purity, batch, and release form in NADage
Further research: A suitable comparative study records the test product's analytical results, batch, and active ingredient together with the placebo composition to define a reproducible exposure.
Remaining uncertainty: The retained identity fields are null or unverified. The molecular name NR alone cannot verify an identical salt, product, or basis for exposure conversion.
Conditions for verification: Verify the identity of the substance actually used in this plan; do not substitute NIAGEN or NR chloride information from another trial.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid directly transferring results and safety findings from different salts, dosage forms, or products.
Application exceptions: If the original source does not clarify the relationship between salt mass and active-moiety amount, retain the reported mg without conversion.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction labeling and test adaptation are internally designed

Related sources S01 S02

N03 · Are other active ingredients or exercise packages separated from the NR-versus-placebo comparison?

Current findings: The question requires an NR-versus-placebo contrast. The principle of not transferring effects from NMN, nicotinamide, niacin, resveratrol, or an exercise package is specified, but full product composition and common care have not been verified.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: The native summaries and values in the retained manuscript were read. External papers, official documents, and registrations remain unread in the current review.
Why unverified: The contrast to be selected is defined, but the actual plan's full composition and concomitant-intervention rules remain unverified. Requesting a single-component contrast differs from having implemented single-component exposure.
Reason for missing information: The contrast to be selected is defined, but the actual plan's full composition and concomitant-intervention rules remain unverified. Requesting a single-component contrast differs from having implemented single-component exposure.
Required materials and conditions: Full product composition and rules for exercise, rehabilitation, diet, and active-ingredient use in both groups
Materials to obtain first: Full product composition and rules for exercise, rehabilitation, diet, and active-ingredient use in both groups
Further research: Specify standard care in both groups and record differences in exercise or rehabilitation, or design these as a separate factor, to estimate the NR contrast.
Remaining uncertainty: The contrast to be selected is defined, but the actual plan's full composition and concomitant-intervention rules remain unverified. Requesting a single-component contrast differs from having implemented single-component exposure.
Conditions for verification: Verify that the selected contrast is the difference between NR and placebo; do not attribute combined active ingredients or differences in exercise between groups to NR alone.
Why this condition is needed: Needed because differences in other active ingredients or rehabilitation may be mixed with the planned contribution of NR.
Application exceptions: The comparison can be retained even when common care is present if its role in both groups is verified. Do not assume that all concomitant interventions were absent.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction labeling and test adaptation are internally designed / M03 §3.2.3, M08 §8.2.2–8.2.3; internal application

Related sources S01 S02

N04 · Are the criteria of age 75 or older and Fried score 3 or higher, and the population actually selected, verified?

Current findings: The official registration index records criteria of community dwelling, age 75 or older, and a Fried Frailty Phenotype score of 3 or higher. The relationship between the investigator page's description of mild-to-moderate frailty, detailed exclusion criteria, and the population actually selected is unverified.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: The native summaries and values in the retained manuscript were read. External papers, official documents, and registrations remain unread in the current review.
Why unverified: The criteria are a description of the plan verified from a limited official index. The full registration and actual baseline table cannot be verified from the retained summary currently held, so a match with the actual population is not established.
Reason for missing information: The criteria are a description of the plan verified from a limited official index. The full registration and actual baseline table cannot be verified from the retained summary currently held, so a match with the actual population is not established.
Required materials and conditions: Full eligibility criteria, selection flow, Fried components, and actual baseline characteristics table
Materials to obtain first: Full eligibility criteria, selection flow, Fried components, and actual baseline characteristics table
Further research: Record the actual selection criteria, baseline Fried components, and comorbidities, and link the analysis denominator for the frail population of interest.
Remaining uncertainty: The criteria are a description of the plan verified from a limited official index. The full registration and actual baseline table cannot be verified from the retained summary currently held, so a match with the actual population is not established.
Conditions for verification: Distinguish the plan's age and frailty criteria read in the official index from whether the population actually recruited and analyzed matches those criteria.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid confusing older age alone, prefrailty, MCI, or PAD with the fixed frailty criteria.
Application exceptions: If data from a mixed population are available, retain the definition of the frail subgroup and its separate results. Do not discard results from other populations or combine them as direct results.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.1; detailed population conditions are internally designed

Related sources S01 S02

N05 · Are baseline usual speed, nutrition, and deficiency status verified?

Current findings: Upper and lower limits for baseline usual gait speed, nutritional status, dietary NR/NAD precursors, and deficiency tests are unverified. The label frailty alone does not establish NR deficiency.
Verification status: Unverified
Materials actually read: The native summaries and values in the retained manuscript were read. External papers, official documents, and registrations remain unread in the current review.
Why unverified: Values related to baseline speed and deficiency in the original assessment question's identity are null. Data are unavailable to distinguish applicability according to the degree of baseline impairment and nutritional status.
Reason for missing information: Values related to baseline speed and deficiency in the original assessment question's identity are null. Data are unavailable to distinguish applicability according to the degree of baseline impairment and nutritional status.
Required materials and conditions: Data on baseline gait speed, nutrition and dietary assessment, deficiency testing, medications, and walking aids
Materials to obtain first: Data on baseline gait speed, nutrition and dietary assessment, deficiency testing, medications, and walking aids
Further research: Specify baseline functional and nutritional measures, and, if an effect-modification analysis is needed, prespecify its rationale and analysis plan.
Remaining uncertainty: Values related to baseline speed and deficiency in the original assessment question's identity are null. Data are unavailable to distinguish applicability according to the degree of baseline impairment and nutritional status.
Conditions for verification: Verify the actual baseline speed and nutrition-related selection criteria; do not substitute deficiency correction or healthy-participant results for this frailty question.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid interpreting results from people with different baseline function or nutritional status as having the same scope of applicability.
Application exceptions: Do not newly impose a deficiency-treatment condition on a trial that did not select participants for deficiency. Retain deficiency status as unverified.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.1; detailed population conditions are internally designed / M03 §3.2.1–3.2.4; details concerning dose, persistence, and effect modification are internally designed

Related sources S01 S02

N06 · Does 2,000 mg/day represent a value for which the actual intake and dosing schedule are also verified?

Current findings: NADage's 2,000 mg/day is the planned daily NR amount. Amount per dose, daily frequency, dose escalation, basis for salt conversion, and actual intake are unverified. The conversion to 2 g/day in the original historical calculation is only a cross-check of mass units.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: The native summaries and values in the retained manuscript were read. External papers, official documents, and registrations remain unread in the current review.
Why unverified: The planned daily amount is retained, but it is not actual exposure. The unit conversion also does not verify equivalence in salt or active-moiety amount.
Reason for missing information: The planned daily amount is retained, but it is not actual exposure. The unit conversion also does not verify equivalence in salt or active-moiety amount.
Required materials and conditions: Amount per dose, frequency, dose escalation, basis for salt conversion, and actual medication-taking and adherence records
Materials to obtain first: Amount per dose, frequency, dose escalation, basis for salt conversion, and actual medication-taking and adherence records
Further research: In the trial, collect records of each administration and adherence, discontinuations, and dose reductions, and distinguish the prespecified effect of assignment from analyses of actual exposure.
Remaining uncertainty: The planned daily amount is retained, but it is not actual exposure. The unit conversion also does not verify equivalence in salt or active-moiety amount.
Conditions for verification: Distinguish the daily amount in the reported plan from actual exposure; do not invent an unknown amount per dose or adherence level.
Why this condition is needed: Needed because confusing the nominal dose with the exposure actually received changes how efficacy and safety apply.
Application exceptions: Do not calculate a new mass or salt conversion or an optimal dose. Distinguish information that may exist in the original paper from what remains unverified in the current input.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction labeling and test adaptation are internally designed / M03 §3.2.3, M08 §8.2.2–8.2.3; internal application

Related sources S01

N07 · Is the 52-week plan linked to actual exposure, measurement, and follow-up after discontinuation?

Current findings: The plan specifies 52 weeks of treatment and assessment at week 52. Actual exposure duration and separate follow-up after discontinuation are unverified. The original gait-speed result at that time point is also unverified.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: The native summaries and values in the retained manuscript were read. External papers, official documents, and registrations remain unread in the current review.
Why unverified: The planned duration is known, but actual completion, exposure, and measurement times are unavailable. The plan cannot be read as evidence that long-term results or a maintenance effect exist.
Reason for missing information: The planned duration is known, but actual completion, exposure, and measurement times are unavailable. The plan cannot be read as evidence that long-term results or a maintenance effect exist.
Required materials and conditions: Records of actual initiation, discontinuation, the week 52 visit, observation windows, and follow-up after discontinuation
Materials to obtain first: Records of actual initiation, discontinuation, the week 52 visit, observation windows, and follow-up after discontinuation
Further research: Record visit windows, actual days of exposure, and missing data appropriate to the original question; if persistence is a separate objective, design follow-up after discontinuation separately.
Remaining uncertainty: The planned duration is known, but actual completion, exposure, and measurement times are unavailable. The plan cannot be read as evidence that long-term results or a maintenance effect exist.
Conditions for verification: Do not turn the planned 52 weeks of treatment and assessment into actual visits or a subsequent maintenance effect.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to distinguish the original question's change at 52 weeks from short-term effects or effects after discontinuation.
Application exceptions: Do not make all post-treatment follow-up studies mandatory for the current question. Separate the 52-week result from a distinct claim of persistence.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction labeling and test adaptation are internally designed / M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptation is internally designed / M03 §3.2.1–3.2.4; details concerning dose, persistence, and effect modification are internally designed

Related sources S01

N08 · Are the placebo composition, matching method, and common care in both groups verified?

Current findings: The official registration index describes a placebo-comparison plan. The fields for the placebo's exact composition, matching method, and common care in both groups are null or unverified.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: The native summaries and values in the retained manuscript were read. External papers, official documents, and registrations remain unread in the current review.
Why unverified: The comparator's name is verified, but it cannot be verified whether NR was the only actual difference or how blinding was implemented.
Reason for missing information: The comparator's name is verified, but it cannot be verified whether NR was the only actual difference or how blinding was implemented.
Required materials and conditions: Placebo composition, appearance/sensory matching, and rules for common medications, diet, exercise, and rehabilitation
Materials to obtain first: Placebo composition, appearance/sensory matching, and rules for common medications, diet, exercise, and rehabilitation
Further research: Disclose the placebo and common care, and record blinding for medication taking and assessment and differences in care between groups.
Remaining uncertainty: The comparator's name is verified, but it cannot be verified whether NR was the only actual difference or how blinding was implemented.
Conditions for verification: Distinguish the existence of a placebo plan from verification of the actual composition, blinding, and common care.
Why this condition is needed: The actual content of the control must be clear to distinguish NR's contribution to the comparison from influences on measurement.
Application exceptions: Do not conclude that an unverified composition means the placebo was absent or blinding failed.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction labeling and test adaptation are internally designed / M03 §3.2.3, M08 §8.2.2–8.2.3; internal application / M08 Table 8.2.a, M03 §3.2.4; internal application

Related sources S02

N09 · Are the actual implementation and concealment of the randomized, double-blind plan verified?

Current findings: S01–S02 are retained as a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled plan. The full registration, actual allocation, concealment, baseline balance, and data on actual implementation and results have not been verified.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: The native summaries and values in the retained manuscript were read. External papers, official documents, and registrations remain unread in the current review.
Why unverified: The design description in the public plan alone does not verify the actual allocation process. Do not reassess unknown implementation as either unbiased or failed.
Reason for missing information: The design description in the public plan alone does not verify the actual allocation process. Do not reassess unknown implementation as either unbiased or failed.
Required materials and conditions: Full protocol, allocation-sequence generation/concealment, and data on actual allocation and baseline balance
Materials to obtain first: Full protocol, allocation-sequence generation/concealment, and data on actual allocation and baseline balance
Further research: Document the actual allocation sequence, concealment, blinding, and baseline characteristics, and report results for the selected effect of assignment.
Remaining uncertainty: The design description in the public plan alone does not verify the actual allocation process. Do not reassess unknown implementation as either unbiased or failed.
Conditions for verification: Distinguish the design label from actual allocation implementation; do not describe unverified implementation as actual nonimplementation.
Why this condition is needed: Needed because the label of a planned RCT alone does not establish that an actual causal comparison was implemented.
Application exceptions: Do not replace an unverified design status with nonapplicability of crossover or cluster designs. Retain the plan and actual implementation separately.
Referenced methods: M08 §8.1–8.2.3; internal application

Related sources S01 S02

N10 · Are the test distance, acceleration section, repetitions, and instrument for usual speed verified?

Current findings: The question concerns change in m/s at a usual, comfortable pace. The actual test distance, acceleration section, instrument, repetitions, walking aids, and assessor blinding are unverified.
Verification status: Unverified
Materials actually read: The native summaries and values in the retained manuscript were read. External papers, official documents, and registrations remain unread in the current review.
Why unverified: target_endpoint defines the measurement concept for the question, but protocol_details is null. Matching units or the word gait alone does not establish that the tests are identical.
Reason for missing information: target_endpoint defines the measurement concept for the question, but protocol_details is null. Matching units or the word gait alone does not establish that the tests are identical.
Required materials and conditions: Usual-speed measurement manual, walking aids, assessors, repetitions, and unit definitions
Materials to obtain first: Usual-speed measurement manual, walking aids, assessors, repetitions, and unit definitions
Further research: Standardize the usual gait-speed procedure and specify assessment time points, aids, assessor blinding, and repeated measurements.
Remaining uncertainty: target_endpoint defines the measurement concept for the question, but protocol_details is null. Matching units or the word gait alone does not establish that the tests are identical.
Conditions for verification: Verify the actual m/s test method for habitual/comfortable pace; do not substitute maximal speed or endurance speed.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent differences in measurement methods from being mixed with actual functional change.
Application exceptions: Do not assume measurement is free of problems because the test is objective. Do not declare that information is unreported throughout the original source merely because it is absent from the plan.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptation is internally designed / M08 Table 8.2.a, M03 §3.2.4; internal application

Related sources S01 S02

N11 · Is NADage's 6-minute walk with concurrent sensors the same endpoint as usual speed over a short course?

Current findings: The public plan for NADage, the closest study, describes a 6-minute walk with concurrent sensor gait assessment. Whether this is an endpoint equivalent to usual short-course gait speed has not been verified.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: The native summaries and values in the retained manuscript were read. External papers, official documents, and registrations remain unread in the current review.
Why unverified: The endpoint's actual name in the plan is verified, but usual_gait_equivalence is not_verified. Creating usual gait speed from distance÷time does not resolve this gap.
Reason for missing information: The endpoint's actual name in the plan is verified, but usual_gait_equivalence is not_verified. Creating usual gait speed from distance÷time does not resolve this gap.
Required materials and conditions: Definitions of the 6-minute walk/sensors and data on equivalence with the usual-speed test and separately reported results
Materials to obtain first: Definitions of the 6-minute walk/sensors and data on equivalence with the usual-speed test and separately reported results
Further research: Measure the two tests separately, describe their protocols, units and observation windows, and report a usual gait speed estimate that matches the question.
Remaining uncertainty: The endpoint's actual name in the plan is verified, but usual_gait_equivalence is not_verified. Creating usual gait speed from distance÷time does not resolve this gap.
Conditions for verification: Do not currently equate the planned 6-minute walk with usual gait speed; require actual verification of equivalence or a separate result.
Why this condition is needed: This is a key endpoint condition for upgrading the closest study to direct evidence of the effect.
Application exceptions: Do not deem it equivalent to comfortable walking over a short course merely because sensors collect speed.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptation is internally designed / M08 Table 8.2.a, M03 §3.2.4; internal application

Related sources S01 S02

N12 · Are the page's usual gait speed endpoint and its actual trial hierarchy as primary, secondary or post hoc verified?

Current findings: Usual gait speed is this page's single editorial endpoint. The investigator page describes the 6-minute walk and sensor assessment as primary, but the field for the hierarchy of usual gait speed within the actual trial is null.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: The native summaries and values in the retained manuscript were read. External papers, official documents, and registrations remain unread in the current review.
Why unverified: The two descriptions concern different things, so this alone is not designated a data conflict. The prespecified hierarchy and analysis plan for usual gait speed, and their agreement with the actual report, remain unverified.
Reason for missing information: The two descriptions concern different things, so this alone is not designated a data conflict. The prespecified hierarchy and analysis plan for usual gait speed, and their agreement with the actual report, remain unverified.
Required materials and conditions: The hierarchy of usual gait speed and reasons for changes in dated registration histories, protocols and analysis plans
Materials to obtain first: The hierarchy of usual gait speed and reasons for changes in dated registration histories, protocols and analysis plans
Further research: Specify the hierarchy and analysis of usual gait speed in the advance plan, and compare the reasons for changes in the actual report together with their dates.
Remaining uncertainty: The two descriptions concern different things, so this alone is not designated a data conflict. The prespecified hierarchy and analysis plan for usual gait speed, and their agreement with the actual report, remain unverified.
Conditions for verification: Do not turn the page's single primary endpoint and the investigator page's description of the 6-minute walk as primary into a primary usual gait speed outcome within the trial.
Why this condition is needed: The editor's chosen question must be distinguished from the original trial's prespecified outcome selection.
Application exceptions: Do not treat failure to acquire the registration history as confirmation of nonregistration or selective reporting.
Referenced methods: M08 Table 8.2.a, M04 §4.6.3; project-specific application / M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; adaptation of outcomes to each question is project-specific

Related sources S01 S02

N13 · Are the planned 100 participants distinguished from the actual enrolled, randomized, completed and usual gait speed analysis counts?

Current findings: NADage's 100 participants are a planned count. Actual enrollment, randomization, completion and usual gait speed analysis counts remain unverified.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: The native summaries and values in the retained manuscript were read. External papers, official documents, and registrations remain unread in the current review.
Why unverified: The nature of the planned n is clear, but actual sample-flow data are unavailable. The 100 participants cannot be converted into a per-group n or an analysis denominator.
Reason for missing information: The nature of the planned n is clear, but actual sample-flow data are unavailable. The 100 participants cannot be converted into a per-group n or an analysis denominator.
Required materials and conditions: Participant flow diagram; enrollment, allocation and completion by group; usual gait speed analysis denominators and reasons for exclusion
Materials to obtain first: Participant flow diagram; enrollment, allocation and completion by group; usual gait speed analysis denominators and reasons for exclusion
Further research: Report the actual sample flow at each stage, the corresponding usual gait speed analysis n and reasons for missingness alongside the results.
Remaining uncertainty: The nature of the planned n is clear, but actual sample-flow data are unavailable. The 100 participants cannot be converted into a per-group n or an analysis denominator.
Conditions for verification: Do not use planned enrollment as the outcome analysis n; link the actual denominators at each stage.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid claiming precision of an effect or completion on the basis of a planned number.
Application exceptions: Do not create a recruitment status or analysis count at the cutoff solely from historical wording that enrollment had actually begun.
Referenced methods: M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; adaptation by study design is project-specific

Related sources S01 S02

N14 · Can the latest recruitment and results-posting status as of the reference date be verified?

Current findings: The wording on the investigator page about recruitment starting is a historical record. S02's directly accessed body was a glossary-only application shell, and the latest status, registration history and posted results were not verified at that time.
Verification status: Unverified
Materials actually read: The native summaries and values in the retained manuscript were read. External papers, official documents, and registrations remain unread in the current review.
Why unverified: The registry was not accessed in the current work. Do not read the generic word Withdrawn in the shell seen at that time as this trial's withdrawal status, or conclude that no latest results exist.
Reason for missing information: The registry was not accessed in the current work. Do not read the generic word Withdrawn in the shell seen at that time as this trial's withdrawal status, or conclude that no latest results exist.
Required materials and conditions: NCT06208527 registration history, status and posted results documents as of the relevant reference date
Materials to obtain first: NCT06208527 registration history, status and posted results documents as of the relevant reference date
Further research: Verification of suitable materials means linking registry versions and results documents to their dates at the time; it is distinct from conducting a new trial itself.
Remaining uncertainty: The registry was not accessed in the current work. Do not read the generic word Withdrawn in the shell seen at that time as this trial's withdrawal status, or conclude that no latest results exist.
Conditions for verification: Distinguish the historical description of recruitment starting and the registry index from the actual status/posted results as of the reference date.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid wrongly attributing generic wording on the registry screen to the trial's actual progress.
Application exceptions: Distinguish the current status of access not attempted from the failure to acquire the body text at that earlier time. Do not use a valid response with 0 results or an unverified status to mean that research does not exist.
Referenced methods: M04 §4.5–4.6 principles for data collection/selection; separation of access from reading and the hyperlink contract are project-specific / M04 §4.5, §4.6.3; limits on conversion of current materials follow the user's scope and project-specific design / M08 Table 8.2.a, M04 §4.6.3; project-specific application

Related sources S01 S02

N15 · Are the actual between-group analysis, ITT/PP and adjustment for usual gait speed verified?

Current findings: The question concerns the between-group difference in change in usual gait speed from baseline to 52 weeks under treatment assignment. The actual analysis population, ITT/PP, adjusted model and results remain unverified.
Verification status: Unverified
Materials actually read: The native summaries and values in the retained manuscript were read. External papers, official documents, and registrations remain unread in the current review.
Why unverified: The estimand in the original question identity is the requested question. It cannot automatically be elevated to an analysis performed in the actual trial.
Reason for missing information: The estimand in the original question identity is the requested question. It cannot automatically be elevated to an analysis performed in the actual trial.
Required materials and conditions: Documents defining the estimand of interest, analysis population, model, adjustment and actual results
Materials to obtain first: Documents defining the estimand of interest, analysis population, model, adjustment and actual results
Further research: Prespecify the effect of interest, handling of missingness and adherence, and adjustment in the analysis plan, and report an estimate for that contrast.
Remaining uncertainty: The estimand in the original question identity is the requested question. It cannot automatically be elevated to an analysis performed in the actual trial.
Conditions for verification: Distinguish the question of the NR−placebo effect of assignment on change from baseline to 52 weeks from the actual analysis.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid treating within-group change, the effect of adherence and the planned effect of assignment as the same actual between-group value.
Application exceptions: Do not fill unverified analysis information with an arbitrary ITT, complete-case or PP analysis.
Referenced methods: M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; project-specific application

Related sources S01 S02

N16 · Who was missing from the 52-week speed measurement, and how was this handled?

Current findings: Actual completion and usual gait speed analysis counts and the reasons for missing measurements are not verified in the retained materials. Observation losses cannot be assessed solely from the planned 52 weeks and 100 participants.
Verification status: Unverified
Materials actually read: The native summaries and values in the retained manuscript were read. External papers, official documents, and registrations remain unread in the current review.
Why unverified: Without actual sample flow and analysis data, the adequacy of missing-data handling or completeness of follow-up cannot be judged.
Reason for missing information: Without actual sample flow and analysis data, the adequacy of missing-data handling or completeness of follow-up cannot be judged.
Required materials and conditions: Missed visits, discontinuation, death/illness, inability to measure, handling of missingness and sensitivity analyses by group
Materials to obtain first: Missed visits, discontinuation, death/illness, inability to measure, handling of missingness and sensitivity analyses by group
Further research: Report visit flow, including discontinuation, death and inability to measure, together with prespecified handling of missingness and sensitivity analyses.
Remaining uncertainty: Without actual sample flow and analysis data, the adequacy of missing-data handling or completeness of follow-up cannot be judged.
Conditions for verification: Link actual measurement and analysis denominators to reasons for missingness; do not turn unverified information into no attrition or 0 events.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to distinguish values from only those with measured outcomes from the effect of assignment during long-term observation of frail participants.
Application exceptions: Do not turn the possibility of missingness into a confirmed magnitude of actual bias or a finding that the trial is invalid.
Referenced methods: M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; adaptation by study design is project-specific / M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; project-specific application

Related sources S01 S02

N17 · Are direct usual gait speed changes, the between-group difference and CI verified?

Current findings: The original values, changes, between-group estimate and CI for directly eligible usual gait speed remain unverified. target_between_group_effect_mps and target_ci are null.
Verification status: Unverified
Materials actually read: The native summaries and values in the retained manuscript were read. External papers, official documents, and registrations remain unread in the current review.
Why unverified: The currently retained materials include plans and results for other questions. Failure to verify direct results does not mean that the effect is 0 or that all human research is absent.
Reason for missing information: The currently retained materials include plans and results for other questions. Failure to verify direct results does not mean that the effect is 0 or that all human research is absent.
Required materials and conditions: Group-specific original usual gait speed values/changes, between-group estimate and CI for the fixed population, exposure and time point
Materials to obtain first: Group-specific original usual gait speed values/changes, between-group estimate and CI for the fixed population, exposure and time point
Further research: An eligible study reports group-specific results for the defined usual gait speed test together with the estimate, CI and denominator for the selected contrast.
Remaining uncertainty: The currently retained materials include plans and results for other questions. Failure to verify direct results does not mean that the effect is 0 or that all human research is absent.
Conditions for verification: Link the m/s result corresponding to the original question; if absent, leave the value null.
Why this condition is needed: This is a key condition for distinguishing the existence of direct results from plans and adjacent numerical findings.
Application exceptions: Do not convert distance, within-group P values or NAD values into a direct between-group effect in m/s.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; adaptation of outcomes to each question is project-specific / M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; project-specific application

Related sources S01 S02

N18 · Are the SD, SE, covariance and interval type for the target change verified?

Current findings: The analysis denominator and CI for the target result remain unverified. The manuscript states that it did not estimate or fill in the target CI, SD, SE or covariance.
Verification status: Unverified
Materials actually read: The native summaries and values in the retained manuscript were read. External papers, official documents, and registrations remain unread in the current review.
Why unverified: No observed variance is available for calculating a new standardized effect or precision. The one-sided 90% interval from PAD pertains to a different endpoint.
Reason for missing information: No observed variance is available for calculating a new standardized effect or precision. The one-sided 90% interval from PAD pertains to a different endpoint.
Required materials and conditions: Variance type, analysis n and model for usual gait speed change, and the reported between-group interval
Materials to obtain first: Variance type, analysis n and model for usual gait speed change, and the reported between-group interval
Further research: Disclose the variance type, denominator, interval construction and analysis model for the relevant usual gait speed result.
Remaining uncertainty: No observed variance is available for calculating a new standardized effect or precision. The one-sided 90% interval from PAD pertains to a different endpoint.
Conditions for verification: Use only variance and intervals belonging to the direct result; do not import SD or a one-sided CI from another trial.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid creating a nonexistent interval by combining numerical values with different variance types or targets.
Application exceptions: Do not use an assumed variance in a plan as an actually observed variance. Do not make a broad declaration of nonreporting by saying it is absent from the original text either.
Referenced methods: M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; adaptation by study design is project-specific / M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; project-specific application

Related sources S01 S02

N19 · Is a clinically important between-group difference appropriate to this frail population and test verified?

Current findings: The applicable between-group MCID field is null. The original question separately requires a valid between-group estimate and an interpretation of clinical importance appropriate to the population and test.
Verification status: Unverified
Materials actually read: The native summaries and values in the retained manuscript were read. External papers, official documents, and registrations remain unread in the current review.
Why unverified: The clinical importance for this question cannot be determined from another gait test, a threshold for individual change or a planned participant count. Exclusion of an important benefit has not been verified either.
Reason for missing information: The clinical importance for this question cannot be determined from another gait test, a threshold for individual change or a planned participant count. Exclusion of an important benefit has not been verified either.
Required materials and conditions: Evidence for a clinically important between-group difference for the relevant frail population and usual gait speed protocol
Materials to obtain first: Evidence for a clinically important between-group difference for the relevant frail population and usual gait speed protocol
Further research: First justify the evidence for an important difference appropriate to the population, test and between-group contrast, then interpret it alongside the estimated interval.
Remaining uncertainty: The clinical importance for this question cannot be determined from another gait test, a threshold for individual change or a planned participant count. Exclusion of an important benefit has not been verified either.
Conditions for verification: Distinguish statistical success from clinical importance, and do not set an unsupported common MCID, minimum participant count or duration.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid equating nominal statistical significance with a clinically important improvement in usual gait speed.
Application exceptions: Because the usual gait speed value itself is the original question, do not impose a separate mortality trial as a prerequisite for that value.
Referenced methods: M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; project-specific application

Related sources S01 S02

N20 · Are the plan's funding, product provision and authors' conflicts of interest directly verified?

Current findings: The record that S01 contains funding information and the relevant location are retained. Because no directly eligible result has been verified, the original independence axis is null. This retained summary contains no extracted values for the specific funding source, product provision or all author roles, so their content was not inferred.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: The native summaries and values in the retained manuscript were read. External papers, official documents, and registrations remain unread in the current review.
Why unverified: The existence and location of funding information are recorded, but the level of actual content in the current input is limited. Do not copy ChromaDex relationships from other NR trials as NADage's provision information.
Reason for missing information: The existence and location of funding information are recorded, but the level of actual content in the current input is limited. Do not copy ChromaDex relationships from other NR trials as NADage's provision information.
Required materials and conditions: NADage's original funding information, product provision, author roles, and patent/employment/declared conflicts of interest
Materials to obtain first: NADage's original funding information, product provision, author roles, and patent/employment/declared conflicts of interest
Further research: Link funding, product provision and author roles to the results data, and verify the actual study families when claiming independent replication.
Remaining uncertainty: The existence and location of funding information are recorded, but the level of actual content in the current input is limited. Do not copy ChromaDex relationships from other NR trials as NADage's provision information.
Conditions for verification: Separate the existence of a funding description from full verification of provision/conflicts of interest, and do not assign an independence score to a missing result.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid inferring independent funding or manufacturer involvement from an unverified supply chain.
Application exceptions: Do not exclude a result solely because a conflict of interest exists. Do not use unverified information as evidence of independence.
Referenced methods: Chamgap's own conditions for independence and attribution. The official methods sections used in this pilot do not endorse all of these detailed items

Related sources S01

N21 · Are plans, papers, registrations and corrections kept from being double-counted as independent trials of effect?

Current findings: The native evidence distinguishes NADage F01, NR-VETS F02, Orr MCI F03, the healthy-adult crossover F04 and NICE PAD F05. S01–S02, S03–S04 and S09–S10 are related reports within their respective families; retain the narrow original record that the number of directly eligible results is 0.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: The native summaries and values in the retained manuscript were read. External papers, official documents, and registrations remain unread in the current review.
Why unverified: The 5 family descriptions and 15 actual citations record existence; they are not counts of direct usual gait speed trials or unique participants. Within the S05–S07 range notation in evidence, individual S06/S07 citations are absent from the current list and must not be created.
Reason for missing information: The 5 family descriptions and 15 actual citations record existence; they are not counts of direct usual gait speed trials or unique participants. Within the S05–S07 range notation in evidence, individual S06/S07 citations are absent from the current list and must not be created.
Required materials and conditions: A mapping of report identifiers, native F01–F05 relationships, and eligible results/endpoints/time points
Materials to obtain first: A mapping of report identifiers, native F01–F05 relationships, and eligible results/endpoints/time points
Further research: When collecting materials, verify the relationships between registration numbers/DOIs and results/time points/analyses to link multiple reports of the same study.
Remaining uncertainty: The 5 family descriptions and 15 actual citations record existence; they are not counts of direct usual gait speed trials or unique participants. Within the S05–S07 range notation in evidence, individual S06/S07 citations are absent from the current list and must not be created.
Conditions for verification: Group the investigator page and registration for the same plan, and papers/corrections for the same trial, leaving unresolved unique trial and participant counts null.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid erasing gaps by counting materials as human trials or replication confirmations.
Application exceptions: If bibliographic details or report families are unresolved, retain provisional relationships and omissions; do not create new reports.
Referenced methods: M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2 distinction between studies and reports; cohort/outcome linkage is a project-specific application / M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2, M15 §15.3.1; project-specific application

Related sources S01 S02 S03 S04 S05 S08 S09 S10

N22 · Is the NR-VETS population the same as the selected frail population with Fried scores of 3 or higher?

Current findings: The institutional index for NR-VETS describes non-frail and prefrail participants, Fried<3. This does not match the Fried≥3 population criterion for this question, and the complete protocol and target results remain unverified.
Verification status: Not met
Materials actually read: The native summaries and values in the retained manuscript were read. External papers, official documents, and registrations remain unread in the current review.
Why unverified: The population described in the currently retained index differs from the fixed question. This does not mean that NR-VETS has no efficacy or that exclusion of frail participants across all amended versions has been established.
Reason for missing information: The population described in the currently retained index differs from the fixed question. This does not mean that NR-VETS has no efficacy or that exclusion of frail participants across all amended versions has been established.
Required materials and conditions: Complete NR-VETS eligibility criteria, amendment history and usual gait speed results by frailty stratum
Materials to obtain first: Complete NR-VETS eligibility criteria, amendment history and usual gait speed results by frailty stratum
Further research: Verify separate results by frailty stratum in that study, or perform the same usual gait speed comparison in the selected Fried≥3 population.
Remaining uncertainty: The population described in the currently retained index differs from the fixed question. This does not mean that NR-VETS has no efficacy or that exclusion of frail participants across all amended versions has been established.
Conditions for verification: Distinguish the Fried<3 description in the currently retained official institutional index from the selected frailty criterion, leaving the latest amendments or target-stratum results unverified.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid repurposing prefrail or non-frail results as direct results for the target frail population.
Application exceptions: Reconsider eligibility if the latest complete registration is acquired and shows population amendments or separate results.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.1; detailed population conditions are project-specific / M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2, M15 §15.3.1; project-specific application

Related sources S03 S04

N23 · Are Orr's two p-values a between-group effect on usual gait speed in frail participants?

Current findings: In Orr MCI, placebo p=0.0402 and NR p=0.4698 are tests of within-group walking-speed change in each group. They are not a between-group effect in m/s, and the clinical MCI eligibility criteria differ from the frailty eligibility conditions for this question.
Verification status: Not met
Materials actually read: The native summaries and values in the retained manuscript were read. External papers, official documents, and registrations remain unread in the current review.
Why unverified: A difference in significance between the two within-group tests is not a test of the between-group effect. The target population, protocol and between-group estimate have not been verified, so these cannot be used as direct results.
Reason for missing information: A difference in significance between the two within-group tests is not a test of the between-group effect. The target population, protocol and between-group estimate have not been verified, so these cannot be used as direct results.
Required materials and conditions: Orr's gait test, actual between-group m/s estimate/CI and results tables by population
Materials to obtain first: Orr's gait test, actual between-group m/s estimate/CI and results tables by population
Further research: Report a direct between-group estimate appropriate to the population of interest and usual gait speed test, and distinguish it from within-group results.
Remaining uncertainty: A difference in significance between the two within-group tests is not a test of the between-group effect. The target population, protocol and between-group estimate have not been verified, so these cannot be used as direct results.
Conditions for verification: Do not read the respective within-group p-values for placebo and NR as a between-group test or a result for the target frail population.
Why this condition is needed: Within-group contrasts must be distinguished from an actual between-group difference.
Application exceptions: Retain within-group p-values as original adjacent results, but do not calculate a new difference or CI.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; adaptation of outcomes to each question is project-specific / M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; project-specific application / M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2, M15 §15.3.1; project-specific application

Related sources S05

N24 · Are Orr's actual completion count, gait analysis denominator and dosing schedule verified?

Current findings: Orr’s abstract and figure captions record 20 completers. The total number randomized and the gait-outcome analysis denominator are unverified in this manuscript. The historical calculation cross-checking the phases 1+1+1+6 against 9 weeks records ambiguity in the abstract’s duration wording; it does not constitute a correction of the original table or a target 52-week result.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: The native summaries and values in the retained manuscript were read. External papers, official documents, and registrations remain unread in the current review.
Why unverified: Only the completed count and a cross-check of the historical schedule are available; an analysis count for the target population is absent. That calculation is not presented as a new clinical calculation or as confirmed actual treatment days.
Reason for missing information: Only the completed count and a cross-check of the historical schedule are available; an analysis count for the target population is absent. That calculation is not presented as a new clinical calculation or as confirmed actual treatment days.
Required materials and conditions: Orr’s participant flow by stage, gait-analysis n, dose escalation/treatment days, and data for the target frail population
Materials to obtain first: Orr’s participant flow by stage, gait-analysis n, dose escalation/treatment days, and data for the target frail population
Further research: For adjacent evidence, verify the actual participant flow and analysis denominator in its original table; assess the target comparison using a separate eligible population and 52-week results.
Remaining uncertainty: Only the completed count and a cross-check of the historical schedule are available; an analysis count for the target population is absent. That calculation is not presented as a new clinical calculation or as confirmed actual treatment days.
Conditions for verification: Do not repurpose the 20 completers or descriptions of schedules from other trials as the analysis denominator or 52-week duration for the target usual gait speed.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent the completed counts and schedules of adjacent trials from being imported as the exposure and denominator for the direct question.
Application exceptions: Detailed counts that may appear in another retained assessment of the same Orr family are not automatically imported into this manuscript.
Referenced methods: M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; adaptations by study design are internally designed / M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction labeling and test adaptations are internally designed / M03 §3.2.1–3.2.4; details on dose, persistence, and effect modification are internally designed

Related sources S05

N25 · Are Martens’ motor-function results in healthy participants equivalent to the target frailty comparison?

Current findings: Martens’ crossover trial in healthy middle-aged and older adults reported no improvement in overall motor function. Baseline function and the regimen differ, and no target usual-speed values were reconstructed from the supplementary motor-function figures.
Verification status: Not met
Materials actually read: The native summaries and values in the retained manuscript were read. External papers, official documents, and registrations remain unread in the current review.
Why unverified: The population and regimen differ from the fixed question of frailty, 2,000 mg/day, and 52 weeks. The adjacent trial’s no-difference result is retained, but it is not used as evidence that the target effect is 0.
Reason for missing information: The population and regimen differ from the fixed question of frailty, 2,000 mg/day, and 52 weeks. The adjacent trial’s no-difference result is retained, but it is not used as evidence that the target effect is 0.
Required materials and conditions: Exposure, duration, baseline function, usual-speed results, and crossover analysis in the healthy-participant crossover trial
Materials to obtain first: Exposure, duration, baseline function, usual-speed results, and crossover analysis in the healthy-participant crossover trial
Further research: Verify results using the same frail population, exposure, and test; when using crossover data, report period, sequence, and carryover effects and a paired analysis.
Remaining uncertainty: The population and regimen differ from the fixed question of frailty, 2,000 mg/day, and 52 weeks. The adjacent trial’s no-difference result is retained, but it is not used as evidence that the target effect is 0.
Conditions for verification: Do not aggregate statements of no difference in motor function among healthy participants as repeated refutations of the target frailty comparison.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to retain the existence of contrary results while preventing refutation in a different population from being transferred to this question.
Application exceptions: Retain the original crossover design, but do not estimate the paired variance for the target usual speed from these data.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.1; detailed population criteria are internally designed / M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; separation of statuses is internally designed / M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; internal application / M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2, M15 §15.3.1; internal application

Related sources S08

N26 · Is NICE’s +17.6 m an effect on usual gait speed in m/s in the frail population?

Current findings: NICE PAD randomized 90 participants overall. The 6-month between-group result for 6-minute walk distance, +17.6 m, is a positive adjacent result. WIQ speed is a self-reported score; these values are not usual-gait-speed results in m/s for the target frail population.
Verification status: Not met
Materials actually read: The native summaries and values in the retained manuscript were read. External papers, official documents, and registrations remain unread in the current review.
Why unverified: The positive signal is retained, but the population, endpoint, and time point differ from the fixed question. Do not use the 90 randomized overall as the analysis n for the target speed or calculate distance÷time.
Reason for missing information: The positive signal is retained, but the population, endpoint, and time point differ from the fixed question. Do not use the 90 randomized overall as the analysis n for the target speed or calculate distance÷time.
Required materials and conditions: NICE’s original 6-minute-walk table and separate usual-speed results for the selected frail population
Materials to obtain first: NICE’s original 6-minute-walk table and separate usual-speed results for the selected frail population
Further research: Measure usual speed separately in the target frail population and report the selected contrast, time point, and denominator.
Remaining uncertainty: The positive signal is retained, but the population, endpoint, and time point differ from the fixed question. Do not use the 90 randomized overall as the analysis n for the target speed or calculate distance÷time.
Conditions for verification: Retain the positive 6-month result for 6-minute walk distance in its original unit, population, and contrast; do not divide by time to create a usual-speed result.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to retain positive adjacent results without elevating them to direct efficacy evidence.
Application exceptions: Attribute the original +17.6 m and the historical 7.0−(−10.6) cross-check only to that PAD distance result.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; adaptations of outcomes to each question are internally designed / M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; adaptations by study design are internally designed / M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; separation of statuses is internally designed / M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2, M15 §15.3.1; internal application

Related sources S09

N27 · Are NICE’s one-sided 90% CI and p=0.08 distinguished from its study-specific criterion?

Current findings: NICE’s adjacent distance result is a one-sided 90% CI [+1.77,+∞) m and p=0.08. The manuscript explains that it met the study’s prespecified significance criterion. It was not reclassified as a failure under a universal p<.05 criterion.
Verification status: Verified
Materials actually read: The native summaries and values in the retained manuscript were read. External papers, official documents, and registrations remain unread in the current review.
Why unverified: The manuscript retains the interval type, lower bound, open upper bound, and explanation of the study-specific criterion. This does not mean that statistical or clinical success for the target usual speed has been verified.
Reason for missing information: The manuscript retains the interval type, lower bound, open upper bound, and explanation of the study-specific criterion. This does not mean that statistical or clinical success for the target usual speed has been verified.
Required materials and conditions: NICE’s prespecified statistical criterion, definition of the one-sided interval, and location of the original between-group report
Materials to obtain first: NICE’s prespecified statistical criterion, definition of the one-sided interval, and location of the original between-group report
Further research: Future direct studies should disclose the prespecified statistical criterion, interval type, and contrast of interest alongside the results, distinguishing these from clinical importance.
Remaining uncertainty: The manuscript retains the interval type, lower bound, open upper bound, and explanation of the study-specific criterion. This does not mean that statistical or clinical success for the target usual speed has been verified.
Conditions for verification: Do not convert the reported one-sided 90% interval’s lower bound and open upper bound +∞, or p=0.08, into a two-sided 95% interval or a CI in the target m/s unit.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid changing the meaning by misrepresenting the adjacent study’s interval type and study-specific criterion.
Application exceptions: Do not calculate a new two-sided CI, standardized effect, or MCID. Verify only at the level of the explanation in the manuscript at that time.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; adaptations of outcomes to each question are internally designed / M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; separation of statuses is internally designed / M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; internal application / M08 Table 8.2.a, M04 §4.6.3; internal application

Related sources S09

N28 · Are the actual content of the NICE correction notice and its impact on the results verified?

Current findings: The record states that the existence and identifier of the 2024-08-12 NICE publisher correction were verified in the original article’s change history. The content of the correction notice was not acquired at that time.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: The native summaries and values in the retained manuscript were read. External papers, official documents, and registrations remain unread in the current review.
Why unverified: The existence of the correction notice is retained, but its body, what was changed, and its impact on the results are unverified. Do not automatically describe it as a retraction or a correction to an effect estimate.
Reason for missing information: The existence of the correction notice is retained, but its body, what was changed, and its impact on the results are unverified. Do not automatically describe it as a retraction or a correction to an effect estimate.
Required materials and conditions: The original article’s change history, the full correction notice, and links between results/tables before and after the correction
Materials to obtain first: The original article’s change history, the full correction notice, and links between results/tables before and after the correction
Further research: When reviewing materials, compare what the full correction notice changes with the original table and record it. This is a verification task distinct from designing a new clinical trial.
Remaining uncertainty: The existence of the correction notice is retained, but its body, what was changed, and its impact on the results are unverified. Do not automatically describe it as a retraction or a correction to an effect estimate.
Conditions for verification: Distinguish the correction notice’s existence/DOI from its content, and do not speculate about what was corrected.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent bibliographic information about a correction from being overstated as a review of its content or verification of changes to results.
Application exceptions: Do not label the lack of an attempt this time as an actual access failure at that earlier time.
Referenced methods: M04 §4.5–4.6 principles for data collection/selection; separation of access from reading and the hyperlink contract are internally designed / M04 §4.5, §4.6.3; limits on conversion to current materials derive from the user-defined scope and internal design / M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; separation of statuses is internally designed

Related sources S09 S10

N29 · Are NMN, NAM, niacin, and tryptophan materials evidence for NR alone?

Current findings: S13 concerns tryptophan, nicotinic acid, and nicotinamide; S14 concerns NMN. The S17 NICE-FIT title contains nicotinamide. Candidates not verified as NR are not used as direct NR evidence.
Verification status: Not met
Materials actually read: The native summaries and values in the retained manuscript were read. External papers, official documents, and registrations remain unread in the current review.
Why unverified: The retained substance identity differs from the requested NR or is not verified as NR. Positive gait results for NMN also do not verify a direct NR effect because the molecule differs.
Reason for missing information: The retained substance identity differs from the requested NR or is not verified as NR. Positive gait results for NMN also do not verify a direct NR effect because the molecule differs.
Required materials and conditions: The actual active ingredient, product composition, endpoint, and population identity of candidate studies
Materials to obtain first: The actual active ingredient, product composition, endpoint, and population identity of candidate studies
Further research: When checking study eligibility, verify the active molecule, salt, and composition, and design a separate direct study for the NR question.
Remaining uncertainty: The retained substance identity differs from the requested NR or is not verified as NR. Positive gait results for NMN also do not verify a direct NR effect because the molecule differs.
Conditions for verification: Do not use other molecules as synonyms for NR, and do not change nicotinamide in the NICE-FIT title to NR.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent distinct exposures from being merged under the collective term NAD precursors.
Application exceptions: Do not elevate a record of screening the substance from the title to verification of the full product composition or reading of the full results text.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction labeling and test adaptations are internally designed / M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2, M15 §15.3.1; internal application

Related sources S13 S14 S17

N30 · Is the NR+exercise trial in hypertension a contrast of NR alone for gait speed in frailty?

Current findings: S15 is a pilot trial of NR+exercise in middle-aged and older adults with hypertension. The record is of screening at the level of the publisher’s abstract and bibliographic back matter; it was not counted as a direct replication of usual-speed results in the target frail population.
Verification status: Not met
Materials actually read: The native summaries and values in the retained manuscript were read. External papers, official documents, and registrations remain unread in the current review.
Why unverified: The population and concurrent intervention in the screening record differ from the fixed question. Separation of exercise by arm and the target speed results were not verified.
Reason for missing information: The population and concurrent intervention in the screening record differ from the fixed question. Separation of exercise by arm and the target speed results were not verified.
Required materials and conditions: S15’s exercise requirements in both arms, NR contrast, frail stratum, and usual-speed results
Materials to obtain first: S15’s exercise requirements in both arms, NR contrast, frail stratum, and usual-speed results
Further research: Specify the exercise common to both arms and the NR difference, or separate their contributions using a factorial design, and measure usual speed in the target frail stratum.
Remaining uncertainty: The population and concurrent intervention in the screening record differ from the fixed question. Separation of exercise by arm and the target speed results were not verified.
Conditions for verification: Distinguish the combination with aerobic exercise in participants with hypertension from the target contrast of NR alone versus placebo.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid confusing the contribution of exercise with that of NR alone.
Application exceptions: Do not state that review of the full results and exercise control is complete on the basis of screening only the publisher’s abstract.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.1; detailed population criteria are internally designed / M03 §3.2.3, M08 §8.2.2–8.2.3; internal application / M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2, M15 §15.3.1; internal application

Related sources S15

N31 · Does the combination-product cognition study in senior dogs address the NR gait question in older humans?

Current findings: S18 concerns a senolytic/NAD-precursor combination and owner-assessed cognition in senior dogs. It was excluded at screening because the species, intervention, and endpoint differ, and no dog effect estimates were used.
Verification status: Not met
Materials actually read: The native summaries and values in the retained manuscript were read. External papers, official documents, and registrations remain unread in the current review.
Why unverified: The actual question in the archived bibliographic record differs from the selected question about gait with NR alone in humans. The title/abstract screening record is not a refutation of human research.
Reason for missing information: The actual question in the archived bibliographic record differs from the selected question about gait with NR alone in humans. The title/abstract screening record is not a refutation of human research.
Required materials and conditions: S18’s species, active ingredients, and measured outcomes, and direct evidence in humans
Materials to obtain first: S18’s species, active ingredients, and measured outcomes, and direct evidence in humans
Further research: A direct comparison with the target human population, exposure to the single intervention, and a usual-speed test is needed.
Remaining uncertainty: The actual question in the archived bibliographic record differs from the selected question about gait with NR alone in humans. The title/abstract screening record is not a refutation of human research.
Conditions for verification: Do not transfer combination-product and owner-assessed cognition results in dogs to usual speed with NR alone in humans.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent automatic attribution of nonhuman, combination-product, and other-function data to this question.
Application exceptions: Retain nonhuman materials as identity-screening records, but do not add them to the count of human trials.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.1; detailed population criteria are internally designed / M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction labeling and test adaptations are internally designed / M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; adaptations of outcomes to each question are internally designed

Related sources S18

N32 · Are direct usual-speed results verified separately from NAD increases, SPPB, strength, and fatigue?

Current findings: NAD increases, SPPB, chair rises, strength, fatigue, and usual gait speed are different outcomes. P on the original axis denotes a functional endpoint performed by the patient; it does not mean that a direct effect has been verified.
Verification status: Unverified
Materials actually read: The native summaries and values in the retained manuscript were read. External papers, official documents, and registrations remain unread in the current review.
Why unverified: Signals from other measures or the existence of a functional-test battery cannot fill in the between-group difference for the target usual speed. That direct value is currently null.
Reason for missing information: Signals from other measures or the existence of a functional-test battery cannot fill in the between-group difference for the target usual speed. That direct value is currently null.
Required materials and conditions: A report distinguishing direct results for the target usual speed from other functional and biochemical results
Materials to obtain first: A report distinguishing direct results for the target usual speed from other functional and biochemical results
Further research: Measure the selected usual speed separately from mechanisms and other functions, and prespecify and report each contrast of interest.
Remaining uncertainty: Signals from other measures or the existence of a functional-test battery cannot fill in the between-group difference for the target usual speed. That direct value is currently null.
Conditions for verification: Do not substitute mechanism or other tests for the selected functional endpoint, or vice versa; require direct results for this question.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent mechanism and function from automatically being interpreted as the same outcome.
Application exceptions: Because the functional score itself is the original question, do not require separate death events as a prerequisite for that value.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; adaptations of outcomes to each question are internally designed / M03 §3.2.4; internally defined scope-expansion boundary

Related sources S05 S08 S09

N33 · Are events, discontinuations, and denominators verified for this plan in the frail population at 2,000 mg/day for 52 weeks?

Current findings: Adverse events, discontinuations, and long-term safety are unverified for the high-dose, long-term plan in the target frail population. Caution in the original safety label does not mean that NR harm has been established.
Verification status: Unverified
Materials actually read: The native summaries and values in the retained manuscript were read. External papers, official documents, and registrations remain unread in the current review.
Why unverified: Event frequency or causality cannot be assessed because records are absent for event definitions, systematic/spontaneous collection, exposure denominators, temporal order, discontinuation/recovery, between-arm comparisons, other causes, and missing data.
Reason for missing information: Event frequency or causality cannot be assessed because records are absent for event definitions, systematic/spontaneous collection, exposure denominators, temporal order, discontinuation/recovery, between-arm comparisons, other causes, and missing data.
Required materials and conditions: Arm-specific AE/SAE, numbers of people and events, discontinuations, collection periods, and collection methods for the same population, product, and exposure
Materials to obtain first: Arm-specific AE/SAE, numbers of people and events, discontinuations, collection periods, and collection methods for the same population, product, and exposure
Further research: In long-term comparisons, collect event definitions, collection schedules, discontinuations, exposure time, concomitant treatments, and arm-specific numbers of people and events. Consider follow-up designs suited to rare events separately.
Remaining uncertainty: Event frequency or causality cannot be assessed because records are absent for event definitions, systematic/spontaneous collection, exposure denominators, temporal order, discontinuation/recovery, between-arm comparisons, other causes, and missing data.
Conditions for verification: Distinguish an efficacy plan from direct safety data, and do not record unverified events as 0 or as confirmation of safety.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent data gaps from being elevated to a guarantee of safety or confirmation of NR harm.
Application exceptions: Even if a signal without a denominator is added, do not convert it into an incidence rate; retain separate efficacy and harm statuses.
Referenced methods: M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; internal application / M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; detailed distinctions are internally designed / M19 §19.2 harm questions by study design; details of temporal relationships are internally designed / M19 §19.2.2–19.2.4, M03 §3.2.3; internal application / M19 §19.2.2–19.2.4 design considerations; detailed confounding records are internally designed / M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4, M04 §4.6.3; internal application / Chamgap’s own interpretive boundary. References M19 principles; not an application of an official causality tool

Related sources S01 S02

N34 · Does EFSA’s assessment of specified NR chloride for use at 300 mg/day in healthy adults guarantee safety for the target question?

Current findings: S11/S12 are official safety and use assessments of specified NR chloride. Assessment of use at 300 mg/day in healthy adults is neither a safety guarantee for this frail population’s plan of 2,000 mg/day for 52 weeks nor approval of walking efficacy.
Verification status: Not met
Materials actually read: The native summaries and values in the retained manuscript were read. External papers, official documents, and registrations remain unread in the current review.
Why unverified: The populations, substances, and conditions of use in the official materials are not equivalent to direct safety information for the target plan. The manuscript also did not copy nicotinic-acid flushing or hepatic harm to NR.
Reason for missing information: The populations, substances, and conditions of use in the official materials are not equivalent to direct safety information for the target plan. The manuscript also did not copy nicotinic-acid flushing or hepatic harm to NR.
Required materials and conditions: The substance, use amount, population, and duration in the EFSA assessment, and direct safety data from the target trial
Materials to obtain first: The substance, use amount, population, and duration in the EFSA assessment, and direct safety data from the target trial
Further research: Separately review long-term safety follow-up appropriate to the target product, dose, and frail population, along with data on concomitant treatments and vulnerable groups.
Remaining uncertainty: The populations, substances, and conditions of use in the official materials are not equivalent to direct safety information for the target plan. The manuscript also did not copy nicotinic-acid flushing or hepatic harm to NR.
Conditions for verification: State the scope of the official use assessment, and do not transfer assessments of different substances, doses, or populations to the overall safety of the target plan.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid extending the authority of an official assessment to a guarantee of safety for all other exposures.
Application exceptions: Official documents are not independent new events or trials; do not double-count safety data they cite again. Do not use a use assessment as personal dosing instructions.
Referenced methods: M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; internal application / M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2; adaptations of harm data are internally designed / Chamgap’s own interpretive boundary. References M19 principles; not an application of an official causality tool

Related sources S11 S12

N35 · Are arm-specific changes in medicines, diet, exercise, rehabilitation, and dose reduction/discontinuation verified?

Current findings: Policies for common medicines, diet, exercise, and rehabilitation in both arms, and actual dosing frequency, dose escalation, adherence, and changes, are unverified. Do not attribute effects of other medicines or rehabilitation to NR.
Verification status: Unverified
Materials actually read: The native summaries and values in the retained manuscript were read. External papers, official documents, and registrations remain unread in the current review.
Why unverified: The full registration and actual implementation records have not been verified, so the effects of concurrent changes and discontinuations cannot be assessed. Do not fill these gaps with an absence of concomitant treatment or completed medication use.
Reason for missing information: The full registration and actual implementation records have not been verified, so the effects of concurrent changes and discontinuations cannot be assessed. Do not fill these gaps with an absence of concomitant treatment or completed medication use.
Required materials and conditions: Lists and timing of concomitant treatments in both arms, medication adherence, dose reduction/discontinuation, rescue treatment, and analytical handling
Materials to obtain first: Lists and timing of concomitant treatments in both arms, medication adherence, dose reduction/discontinuation, rescue treatment, and analytical handling
Further research: Collect the timing of medication changes and concurrent treatments, and explicitly distinguish the effect of assignment, the effect of adherence, and attribution of harms.
Remaining uncertainty: The full registration and actual implementation records have not been verified, so the effects of concurrent changes and discontinuations cannot be assessed. Do not fill these gaps with an absence of concomitant treatment or completed medication use.
Conditions for verification: Connect differences in actual exposure and concurrent treatments to interpretation of results and safety, and do not confirm actual implementation from planned rules alone.
Why this condition is needed: Concurrent exposures, selection, and losses must be distinguished when attributing the actual effect of interest and harms.
Application exceptions: Do not exclude solely because concomitant treatment is present; compare differences between arms, the contrast of interest, and handling methods.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.3, M08 §8.2.2–8.2.3; internal application / M19 §19.2.2–19.2.4 design considerations; detailed confounding records are internally designed / M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4, M04 §4.6.3; internal application

Related sources S01 S02

N36 · Does the claim also extend to the optimal dose, maintenance after discontinuation, and effects in other frailty strata?

Current findings: The current table concerns usual speed under the planned conditions of 2,000 mg/day, 52 weeks, and Fried≥3. It does not establish the optimal dose, persistence after discontinuation, or effects across all frailty strata at the same time.
Verification status: Not applicable
Materials actually read: The native summaries and values in the retained manuscript were read. External papers, official documents, and registrations remain unread in the current review.
Why unverified: Extended claims are outside the scope of this independent question. Not applicable does not mean that those extended effects are absent or that external full text has been read.
Reason for missing information: Extended claims are outside the scope of this independent question. Not applicable does not mean that those extended effects are absent or that external full text has been read.
Required materials and conditions: Direct dose comparisons, follow-up after discontinuation, and prespecified subgroup/interaction data needed when making such extended claims
Materials to obtain first: Direct dose comparisons, follow-up after discontinuation, and prespecified subgroup/interaction data needed when making such extended claims
Further research: If a new extension question is requested, first define separate questions and plans for dose comparisons, follow-up after discontinuation, and effect modification.
Remaining uncertainty: Extended claims are outside the scope of this independent question. Not applicable does not mean that those extended effects are absent or that external full text has been read.
Conditions for verification: Separate the narrow planned contrast from effects at other doses, after discontinuation, and in subgroups; do not require extension trials unnecessary for the current question.
Why this condition is needed: A boundary condition to prevent a narrow result from being extended to optimal treatment, maintenance, or all subgroups.
Application exceptions: Actual 52-week results for the original question are needed. Separate evidence of maintenance effects after discontinuation is not imposed as a mandatory requirement for this table.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.1–3.2.4; details on dose, persistence, and effect modification are internally designed

Related sources S01 S02

N37 · Does the claim also encompass prevention of falls, hospitalization, and death, and improvement in quality of life?

Current findings: The original question concerns usual walking function itself. Prevention of falls, hospitalization, and death, and improvement in quality of life are not adjudicated together with it.
Verification status: Not applicable
Materials actually read: The native summaries and values in the retained manuscript were read. External papers, official documents, and registrations remain unread in the current review.
Why unverified: Separate clinical events are outside the fixed question. This boundary of non-applicability does not imply an absence of effects on those events, nor does it remove the necessary conditions for the current speed outcome.
Reason for missing information: Separate clinical events are outside the fixed question. This boundary of non-applicability does not imply an absence of effects on those events, nor does it remove the necessary conditions for the current speed outcome.
Required materials and conditions: Event definitions, observation windows, comparison denominators, and direct estimation data required when making claims about those events
Materials to obtain first: Event definitions, observation windows, comparison denominators, and direct estimation data required when making claims about those events
Further research: If event prevention becomes a new question, a design with definitions, follow-up, denominators, and comparisons for those events is reviewed separately.
Remaining uncertainty: Separate clinical events are outside the fixed question. This boundary of non-applicability does not imply an absence of effects on those events, nor does it remove the necessary conditions for the current speed outcome.
Conditions for verification: Direct evidence on other clinical events and quality of life is addressed separately from the usual-speed question.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to prevent a functional-measurement question from automatically being extended to prevention of separate events.
Application exceptions: A mortality trial is not uniformly required for a question about change in usual speed itself. If the claim is extended, separate direct-evidence conditions are fixed.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.4; internally designed boundaries for extensions / M03 §3.1, §3.2.1–3.2.4 principles for clarifying the question; detailed separation rules are internally designed

Related sources

N38 · Do 0 direct results and no_human_study mean that all human NR research amounts to 0?

Current findings: In the logged search as of 2026-09-15, no directly eligible result for the fixed question was verified; that is the meaning of the original 0. human_NR_trials_exist=true and no_human_study=true coexist; the latter has the narrow meaning of a gate for calculator compatibility.
Verification status: Verified
Materials actually read: The native summaries and values in the retained manuscript were read. External papers, official documents, and registrations remain unread in the current review.
Why unverified: The original grade_semantics specifies the scope. The original ? and null score are preserved, without carrying them over as this table's verification status, an efficacy probability, or a new judgment.
Reason for missing information: The original grade_semantics specifies the scope. The original ? and null score are preserved, without carrying them over as this table's verification status, an efficacy probability, or a new judgment.
Required materials and conditions: The original search reference date, selection records, and explicit scope within which directly eligible results were checked
Materials to obtain first: The original search reference date, selection records, and explicit scope within which directly eligible results were checked
Further research: Future evidence updates retain the same boundaries, search dates, and eligibility records, and distinguish new results from existing plans and other outcomes.
Remaining uncertainty: The original grade_semantics specifies the scope. The original ? and null score are preserved, without carrying them over as this table's verification status, an efficacy probability, or a new judgment.
Conditions for verification: The scope of the original 0 and the compatibility boolean is preserved, without extending it to 0 effect, 0 human studies, or worldwide absence.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed so that the different meanings of the numeric value 0 and the historical boolean do not produce a false declaration of absence.
Application exceptions: The original log files and ZIP were not opened this time, so the search as of the reference date is neither rerun nor presented as a current, up-to-date comprehensive review.
Referenced methods: M04 §4.5, §4.6.3; limits on the current data transformation follow the user's scope and internal design / M03 §3.1, §3.2.1–3.2.4 principles for clarifying the question; detailed separation rules are internally designed

Related sources

N39 · Are the currently preserved archived summaries distinguished from external access and full-text reading at that earlier time?

Current findings: This time, the entire KO/EN text, structure, bibliography, and history of the preserved archived summaries, identical to the current source, were read. Report-specific access records dated 2026-09-15 for official indexes, application shells, abstracts, figure legends, HTML, and correction metadata are historical records. External materials have not been accessed or read this time; access has not been attempted.
Verification status: Verified
Materials actually read: The native summaries and values in the retained manuscript were read. External papers, official documents, and registrations remain unread in the current review.
Why unverified: The scope of the current summary reading and the attribution of the historical access descriptions were checked. The existence of publisher, PMC, and official links is distinguished from having read the full text now.
Reason for missing information: The scope of the current summary reading and the attribution of the historical access descriptions were checked. The existence of publisher, PMC, and official links is distinguished from having read the full text now.
Required materials and conditions: Each report's actual material type, original address, current access-not-attempted/unread status, historical access_level/date, and original location
Materials to obtain first: Each report's actual material type, original address, current access-not-attempted/unread status, historical access_level/date, and original location
Further research: When materials are acquired, their original locations, access events, dates, and material types are recorded by report, and original summaries are distinguished from directly obtained full texts. This is a method for reviewing materials, separate from a clinical trial proposal.
Remaining uncertainty: The scope of the current summary reading and the attribution of the historical access descriptions were checked. The existence of publisher, PMC, and official links is distinguished from having read the full text now.
Conditions for verification: Reading the local summaries now is not presented as current reading of external abstracts, full texts, or registrations; historical access levels are kept separate for each report.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid confusing links, historical access records, and local summaries with current full-text reading.
Application exceptions: Current access that was not attempted is not labeled as failed. A historical description of full-text access is not copied to another material type for the same article.
Referenced methods: M04 §4.5–4.6 principles for data collection/selection; the separation of access from reading and the hyperlink contract are internally designed / M04 §4.5, §4.6.3; limits on the current data transformation follow the user's scope and internal design

Related sources S01 S02 S03 S04 S05 S08 S09 S10 S11 S12 S13 S14 S15 S17 S18

N40 · Were the original ?, null values, axes, calculations, and publication metadata preserved without a new judgment?

Current findings: Record from the time the preservation table was prepared: The original grade ?, null score, B/P, unscored axes, compatibility boolean, 4 historical arithmetic calculations, document self-review, and publication reference date are preserved. In that record, the original deployed_at was null, and the map current at that time was also not publicly deployed.
Verification status: Verified
Materials actually read: The native summaries and values in the retained manuscript were read. External papers, official documents, and registrations remain unread in the current review.
Why unverified: Preservation of the original values is neither a new efficacy judgment nor document-quality certification. The preserved arithmetic was performed at that earlier time; no new clinical calculations were performed this time.
Reason for missing information: Preservation of the original values is neither a new efficacy judgment nor document-quality certification. The preserved arithmetic was performed at that earlier time; no new clinical calculations were performed this time.
Required materials and conditions: The exact original values for the original judgment, unscored axes, historical arithmetic, document quality, and manuscript publication/deployment metadata
Materials to obtain first: The exact original values for the original judgment, unscored axes, historical arithmetic, document quality, and manuscript publication/deployment metadata
Further research: Future updates preserve the source bytes before and after changes and the reasons for changes, and distinguish changes in conditions, additions of materials, and new publication events.
Remaining uncertainty: Preservation of the original values is neither a new efficacy judgment nor document-quality certification. The preserved arithmetic was performed at that earlier time; no new clinical calculations were performed this time.
Conditions for verification: Native typed values and historical records are preserved in their original form, without elevating them to new efficacy or safety grades, check scores, or completed publication.
Why this condition is needed: This is needed to prevent the status of the table conversion from being misread as an existing grade, a calculated value, or a public publication event.
Application exceptions: Values, grades, and reading scopes from other current judgments are not carried over to this table. The original ? is not used as a simple substitute label for unread materials.
Referenced methods: M04 §4.5, §4.6.3; limits on the current data transformation follow the user's scope and internal design / M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; separation of statuses is internally designed

Related sources