# Ordinary thiamine (vitamin B1) × Handgrip improvement in objectively weak adults Verdict 3117 · Evidence Check Stored-material review date: 2026-10-05 Original evidence date: 2026-09-16 Review-criteria version: 3117-ORAL-THIAMINE-HANDGRIP-1.0 Public page/material preparation date: 2026-11-06 Clinical papers were not read directly; existing review summaries were checked. No new clinical-literature search was performed. Unverified does not mean that research is absent or that there is no effect. ## Assessment scope - Population: Adults with objectively verified reduced muscle strength; actual cutoff and thiamine status unverified - Ingredient, formulation and route: Single-ingredient oral preparation; thiamine base/hydrochloride/nitrate kept separate, selected salt unverified - Dose: Eligible-study dose unverified - Comparator: Placebo, no added thiamine, or usual care with all other treatments matched - Measured outcome: A single handgrip endpoint; hand, device, repeated-measurement rules, units, and principal time point unverified - Duration: Eligible-study treatment duration unverified - Questions outside this scope: Do not combine fatigue, muscle mass, walking, neurological symptoms/deficiency correction, injections/derivatives/combinations, dietary associations, or separate functional/event outcomes into a direct handgrip effect. ## Checklist items ### N01 · Which population, route, and strength outcome does this table address? Verification status: Met Reading scope: Only the designated retained summaries were actually read. External original texts and older separate files remain unread in this work. - Current findings: The current claim is a single comparative handgrip question about single-ingredient oral ordinary thiamine in adults with objectively reduced muscle strength. The source explicitly specifies a single independent claim, and no actual trial has been fixed. The original stored summary has no subclaims key. - Why unverified: This verifies preservation of the claim boundary. It does not mean that a directly eligible trial or effect has been verified. - Reason for missing information: This verifies preservation of the claim boundary. It does not mean that a directly eligible trial or effect has been verified. - Required materials and conditions: Current independent claim, adults with objectively reduced muscle strength, oral ordinary thiamine, comparator, and handgrip boundary - Materials to obtain first: Current independent claim, adults with objectively reduced muscle strength, oral ordinary thiamine, comparator, and handgrip boundary - Further research: Verify comparative handgrip data that meet this boundary, and assess other endpoints and formulations as separate questions. - Conditions for verification: Maintain the same unit of inquiry as the original question and distinguish question-level boundaries from actual trial identity. - Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid combining fatigue, muscle mass, walking, and deficiency treatment with comparative handgrip efficacy. - Application exceptions: Do not arbitrarily fill in the salt, dose, test, or time point from adjacent studies to resolve the absence of a verified selected trial. - Remaining uncertainty: This verifies preservation of the claim boundary. It does not mean that a directly eligible trial or effect has been verified. - Referenced methods: Internal case-specific adaptation of the retained M03/M04/M08/M15/M19 principles on questions, families, measurement/analysis/uncertainty, and harms. This is not formal application of a methodology or clinical certification. - Related sources: ### N02 · Have the ordinary-thiamine salt and single-ingredient product in the target trial been verified? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Only the designated retained summaries were actually read. External original texts and older separate files remain unread in this work. - Current findings: The question concerns single-ingredient ordinary thiamine, but no eligible study has been selected, so the actual salt and product are unverified. The actual_salt field in the assessment question's identity is null. It was not filled using the mixture of CMT hydrochloride and derivative exposures or the separate 100 mg product in S15. - Why unverified: The eligible product and actual chemical form cannot be identified within the current retained scope. - Reason for missing information: The eligible product and actual chemical form cannot be identified within the current retained scope. - Required materials and conditions: Base/hydrochloride/nitrate, manufacturer, ingredients/excipients, and free-thiamine-equivalent amount of the product in an eligible original report - Materials to obtain first: Base/hydrochloride/nitrate, manufacturer, ingredients/excipients, and free-thiamine-equivalent amount of the product in an eligible original report - Further research: Compare product and ingredient records from an eligible trial, and extract derivative/combination exposures separately. - Conditions for verification: Retain null values for the actual salt/product and the exclusion of derivatives and combination products separately. - Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid identifying the actual trial product from derivatives, a separate licensed product, or mixed CMT treatments. - Application exceptions: Specifying single-ingredient ordinary thiamine in the question is different from verifying the actual product. - Remaining uncertainty: The eligible product and actual chemical form cannot be identified within the current retained scope. - Referenced methods: Internal case-specific adaptation of the retained M03/M04/M08/M15/M19 principles on questions, families, measurement/analysis/uncertainty, and harms. This is not formal application of a methodology or clinical certification. - Related sources: S05, S06, S11, S15 ### N03 · Have the question's oral route and the actual tablet/capsule form been distinguished? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Only the designated retained summaries were actually read. External original texts and older separate files remain unread in this work. - Current findings: The claim's route is oral, and injections are not allowed. The physical dosage form of an actually eligible product is unverified. The intramuscular 100 mg, 2 times per week cases in S09 and the tablets in S15 were not used as the oral product in the target handgrip trial. - Why unverified: The route boundary is clear, but the actual eligible product and physical dosage form have not been verified. - Reason for missing information: The route boundary is clear, but the actual eligible product and physical dosage form have not been verified. - Required materials and conditions: Oral route, physical dosage form, and manufacturing/batch data for an eligible comparison - Materials to obtain first: Oral route, physical dosage form, and manufacturing/batch data for an eligible comparison - Further research: Verify administration and physical dosage form in the original trial, and link injection and derivative evidence separately. - Conditions for verification: Explain the oral question, exclusion of injections, and the gap concerning the actual physical dosage form. - Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid transferring responses from injection cases or a specific tablet's product information to the target trial exposure. - Application exceptions: Preserve the oral-route boundary of the question without automatically assigning an unverified tablet/capsule form. - Remaining uncertainty: The route boundary is clear, but the actual eligible product and physical dosage form have not been verified. - Referenced methods: Internal case-specific adaptation of the retained M03/M04/M08/M15/M19 principles on questions, families, measurement/analysis/uncertainty, and harms. This is not formal application of a methodology or clinical certification. - Related sources: S09, S15 ### N04 · Have the dose and adherence in the target handgrip trial been verified? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Only the designated retained summaries were actually read. External original texts and older separate files remain unread in this work. - Current findings: The actual_dose and verified_values.dose fields for an eligible handgrip comparison are null. Wilkinson's 10 mg/day and TARIF's 600–1800 mg/day are historical exposures in different populations/outcomes. No dose conversion, calculation, or dosing suggestion was made in this work. - Why unverified: Actual dose, schedule, adherence, and handgrip outcomes by dose for the target comparison are unverified. - Reason for missing information: Actual dose, schedule, adherence, and handgrip outcomes by dose for the target comparison are unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Nominal dose, dosing schedule, active amount, actual adherence/exposure, and concomitant supplementation by eligible group - Materials to obtain first: Nominal dose, dosing schedule, active amount, actual adherence/exposure, and concomitant supplementation by eligible group - Further research: Link dosing/adherence records for an eligible product to outcome denominators, and assess direct dose comparisons separately. - Conditions for verification: Distinguish the null value for the actual target dose from historical doses in individual sources. - Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid turning 10 mg, 600–1800 mg, or high-dose case reports into effective doses for this population. - Application exceptions: Doses in adjacent studies are historical records, not individual dosing recommendations or dose-response evidence. - Remaining uncertainty: Actual dose, schedule, adherence, and handgrip outcomes by dose for the target comparison are unverified. - Referenced methods: Internal case-specific adaptation of the retained M03/M04/M08/M15/M19 principles on questions, families, measurement/analysis/uncertainty, and harms. This is not formal application of a methodology or clinical certification. - Related sources: S01, S03 ### N05 · Have the eligible treatment duration and handgrip measurement time point been verified? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Only the designated retained summaries were actually read. External original texts and older separate files remain unread in this work. - Current findings: The treatment duration and principal handgrip time point of a selected eligible trial are null. Wilkinson's 3 months, TARIF's 4-week periods and washout, and allithiamine's 5 days were not combined as target efficacy over the same period. - Why unverified: The appropriate duration, principal time point, and sustained effect for the target handgrip comparison have not yet been verified. - Reason for missing information: The appropriate duration, principal time point, and sustained effect for the target handgrip comparison have not yet been verified. - Required materials and conditions: Eligible treatment duration, principal handgrip time point, follow-up after discontinuation, and measurements by visit - Materials to obtain first: Eligible treatment duration, principal handgrip time point, follow-up after discontinuation, and measurements by visit - Further research: Verify visit, treatment, and discontinuation times in an eligible comparison, and assess maintenance effects using separate data. - Conditions for verification: Preserve null actual_duration/actual_timepoint values separately from durations in individual sources. - Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid filling in 3 months, 4 weeks, 5 days, or long-term cases as verified timing for the target question. - Application exceptions: Do not replace the question's unverified duration with the duration of an adjacent trial. - Remaining uncertainty: The appropriate duration, principal time point, and sustained effect for the target handgrip comparison have not yet been verified. - Referenced methods: Internal case-specific adaptation of the retained M03/M04/M08/M15/M19 principles on questions, families, measurement/analysis/uncertainty, and harms. This is not formal application of a methodology or clinical certification. - Related sources: S01, S03, S12 ### N06 · Is there an actual enrollment cutoff for objectively reduced muscle strength? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Only the designated retained summaries were actually read. External original texts and older separate files remain unread in this work. - Current findings: The target is adults with objectively reduced muscle strength, but actual_weakness_cutpoint is null. Older adults with low TPP in TF01, IBD patients with fatigue in TF02, and healthy students do not automatically meet that definition. - Why unverified: The eligible reduced-strength cutoff, baseline distribution, and selected subgroup are unverified. - Reason for missing information: The eligible reduced-strength cutoff, baseline distribution, and selected subgroup are unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Adult inclusion/exclusion, definition of objectively reduced handgrip, cutoff, baseline distribution, and verified subgroup - Materials to obtain first: Adult inclusion/exclusion, definition of objectively reduced handgrip, cutoff, baseline distribution, and verified subgroup - Further research: Obtain enrollment criteria, individual/subgroup baseline handgrip, and prespecified definitions before comparing population eligibility. - Conditions for verification: Leave the cutoff unverified and explain mismatches in adjacent populations with reference to the original source locations. - Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid turning low TPP, older age, fatigue, or a low group mean into reduced muscle strength in every participant. - Application exceptions: Distinguish the question's population definition from verification of an actually eligible population. - Remaining uncertainty: The eligible reduced-strength cutoff, baseline distribution, and selected subgroup are unverified. - Referenced methods: Internal case-specific adaptation of the retained M03/M04/M08/M15/M19 principles on questions, families, measurement/analysis/uncertainty, and harms. This is not formal application of a methodology or clinical certification. - Related sources: S01, S03, S12 ### N07 · Can deficiency correction be separated from the effect of general additional supplementation? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Only the designated retained summaries were actually read. External original texts and older separate files remain unread in this work. - Current findings: Thiamine status in an actually eligible population is null. Selection for low erythrocyte TPP and objectively reduced muscle strength are different criteria, and deficiency correction or refeeding management does not replace evidence of efficacy for general handgrip supplementation. - Why unverified: Nutritional status and effects by deficient/nondeficient status in the target comparison have not been verified. - Reason for missing information: Nutritional status and effects by deficient/nondeficient status in the target comparison have not been verified. - Required materials and conditions: Thiamine status, deficiency definition, handgrip outcomes by status, and deficiency-treatment context in an eligible population - Materials to obtain first: Thiamine status, deficiency definition, handgrip outcomes by status, and deficiency-treatment context in an eligible population - Further research: Compare status definitions, treatment context, and direct handgrip comparisons by status separately. - Conditions for verification: Keep actual_thiamine_status null and identify deficiency correction as a separate question. - Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid transferring low TPP, deficiency neuropathy, or altered nutritional requirements to the efficacy of general strength supplementation. - Application exceptions: This undetermined assessment is not an instruction to stop necessary deficiency treatment. - Remaining uncertainty: Nutritional status and effects by deficient/nondeficient status in the target comparison have not been verified. - Referenced methods: Internal case-specific adaptation of the retained M03/M04/M08/M15/M19 principles on questions, families, measurement/analysis/uncertainty, and harms. This is not formal application of a methodology or clinical certification. - Related sources: S01, S16, S17 ### N08 · Have the actual comparator and balance of concomitant treatments been verified? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Only the designated retained summaries were actually read. External original texts and older separate files remain unread in this work. - Current findings: The question's comparators are placebo, no added thiamine, or usual care with all other treatments matched. The actually eligible comparator is null. Mixed CMT formulations/other treatments and healthy-participant biomarker comparisons are not matched untreated long-term handgrip comparators. - Why unverified: Group-specific concomitant-treatment and exposure data needed to distinguish the eligible comparison and the selected thiamine's contribution are unverified. - Reason for missing information: Group-specific concomitant-treatment and exposure data needed to distinguish the eligible comparison and the selected thiamine's contribution are unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Eligible placebo/no added thiamine/matched usual care, concomitant treatments, changes/rescue treatment, and adherence - Materials to obtain first: Eligible placebo/no added thiamine/matched usual care, concomitant treatments, changes/rescue treatment, and adherence - Further research: Link background care and changes by group to the analysis of the actual effect of interest. - Conditions for verification: Record the question's comparison separately from the actual unverified comparator and effects of concomitant interventions. - Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid turning other CMT treatments or healthy-participant biomarker comparisons into handgrip comparators. - Application exceptions: Distinguish the intended comparator from the null actual_comparator value, without requiring every change in every group to be identical. - Remaining uncertainty: Group-specific concomitant-treatment and exposure data needed to distinguish the eligible comparison and the selected thiamine's contribution are unverified. - Referenced methods: Internal case-specific adaptation of the retained M03/M04/M08/M15/M19 principles on questions, families, measurement/analysis/uncertainty, and harms. This is not formal application of a methodology or clinical certification. - Related sources: S05, S06, S07 ### N09 · Is there an actual target measurement specifying hand, device, units, and repeated-measurement rules? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Only the designated retained summaries were actually read. External original texts and older separate files remain unread in this work. - Current findings: For the target handgrip outcome, actual_device, actual_hand, actual_units, and the principal time point are null. Dominant-hand Preston measurement in TF01 is adjacent-trial information and does not automatically establish repeated-measurement rules or the target protocol. - Why unverified: Actual measurement, aggregation, group-specific assessment conditions, and units for the target handgrip outcome are unverified. - Reason for missing information: Actual measurement, aggregation, group-specific assessment conditions, and units for the target handgrip outcome are unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Eligible handgrip device/calibration, hand, posture, repetition/aggregation rules, units, assessor masking, and principal time point - Materials to obtain first: Eligible handgrip device/calibration, hand, posture, repetition/aggregation rules, units, assessor masking, and principal time point - Further research: Extract eligible testing procedures and implementation/assessment by group together with the original handgrip results. - Conditions for verification: Distinguish null actual device/hand/unit values from test information in adjacent studies. - Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid filling in dominant-hand measurement with a Preston device as the protocol of an unselected target trial. - Application exceptions: The name of an objective measurement alone does not resolve measurement bias or its importance for daily function. - Remaining uncertainty: Actual measurement, aggregation, group-specific assessment conditions, and units for the target handgrip outcome are unverified. - Referenced methods: Internal case-specific adaptation of the retained M03/M04/M08/M15/M19 principles on questions, families, measurement/analysis/uncertainty, and harms. This is not formal application of a methodology or clinical certification. - Related sources: S01 ### N10 · Have the page's handgrip question and the original trial's primary endpoint been distinguished? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Only the designated retained summaries were actually read. External original texts and older separate files remain unread in this work. - Current findings: The question-level endpoint is fixed as handgrip. No directly eligible trial has been selected, and the actual prespecified endpoint hierarchy is unverified. TARIF remains in the context of primary fatigue and an excerpt concerning secondary handgrip. - Why unverified: The page's endpoint is clear, but comparison of eligible prespecified hierarchy with reporting is incomplete. - Reason for missing information: The page's endpoint is clear, but comparison of eligible prespecified hierarchy with reporting is incomplete. - Required materials and conditions: Handgrip endpoint, principal time point/analysis hierarchy in eligible registration/planning records, and actual reporting - Materials to obtain first: Handgrip endpoint, principal time point/analysis hierarchy in eligible registration/planning records, and actual reporting - Further research: Compare registration, protocol, and analysis plan with actual handgrip reporting. - Conditions for verification: Distinguish handgrip being fixed at the question level from the unverified actual trial hierarchy and plan. - Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid turning a primary fatigue endpoint and a secondary handgrip excerpt into the same prespecified primary handgrip effect. - Application exceptions: The fact that handgrip is the page's target does not itself mean that it was the trial's primary endpoint or was preregistered. - Remaining uncertainty: The page's endpoint is clear, but comparison of eligible prespecified hierarchy with reporting is incomplete. - Referenced methods: Internal case-specific adaptation of the retained M03/M04/M08/M15/M19 principles on questions, families, measurement/analysis/uncertainty, and harms. This is not formal application of a methodology or clinical certification. - Related sources: S03, S18 ### N11 · Are the 76 older adults with low TPP an objectively weak population? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Only the designated retained summaries were actually read. External original texts and older separate files remain unread in this work. - Current findings: Wilkinson is a placebo-controlled study of 10 mg/day for 3 months in 76 older adults. The entry criterion was erythrocyte TPP <140 nmol/L, not an objective reduced-strength cutoff. It was therefore not selected as directly eligible for the current target efficacy question. - Why unverified: The trial exists, but a direct comparison in an objectively weak population or prespecified stratum has not been verified. - Reason for missing information: The trial exists, but a direct comparison in an objectively weak population or prespecified stratum has not been verified. - Required materials and conditions: Wilkinson enrollment criteria, TPP strata, baseline low-handgrip cutoff/prespecified subgroup - Materials to obtain first: Wilkinson enrollment criteria, TPP strata, baseline low-handgrip cutoff/prespecified subgroup - Further research: Verify original enrollment, baseline handgrip, and prespecified comparisons by stratum to prepare material for reassessing eligibility. - Conditions for verification: Retain the trial of 76 participants together with the reasons for the population mismatch. - Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid promoting the closest controlled trial to a direct trial matching the target population. - Application exceptions: Low TPP and a low group mean alone do not establish reduced strength in every person or subgroup. - Remaining uncertainty: The trial exists, but a direct comparison in an objectively weak population or prespecified stratum has not been verified. - Referenced methods: Internal case-specific adaptation of the retained M03/M04/M08/M15/M19 principles on questions, families, measurement/analysis/uncertainty, and harms. This is not formal application of a methodology or clinical certification. - Related sources: S01, S02 ### N12 · Has the scope of dominant-hand Preston grip measurement and 3 months of exposure been preserved? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Only the designated retained summaries were actually read. External original texts and older separate files remain unread in this work. - Current findings: The retained TF01 record describes dominant-hand grip with a Preston dynamometer and oral 10 mg/day for 3 months. S01 was an HTML reproduction of the original report on a 3rd-party host at that time, with recorded layout errors in text extraction from the two-column article. The original clinical full text was not reread in this work. - Why unverified: Testing and duration information is retained, but the quantitative contrast, applicability of units/repetition procedures to the target, and current comparison with the original text are unverified. - Reason for missing information: Testing and duration information is retained, but the quantitative contrast, applicability of units/repetition procedures to the target, and current comparison with the original text are unverified. - Required materials and conditions: S01 testing, units/repetitions, time points, original results tables, and quantitative handgrip contrast - Materials to obtain first: S01 testing, units/repetitions, time points, original results tables, and quantitative handgrip contrast - Further research: Verify testing procedures and analysis values in the original Methods/Results/tables, and link them to the same outcome. - Conditions for verification: Attribute dominant-hand Preston measurement/10 mg/3 months to TF01 and retain the additional measurement gaps. - Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid assigning the device/time to another trial or claiming new verification of the complete testing section. - Application exceptions: Historical access to a full-text reproduction on a 3rd-party host differs from reading the local summary in this work. - Remaining uncertainty: Testing and duration information is retained, but the quantitative contrast, applicability of units/repetition procedures to the target, and current comparison with the original text are unverified. - Referenced methods: Internal case-specific adaptation of the retained M03/M04/M08/M15/M19 principles on questions, families, measurement/analysis/uncertainty, and harms. This is not formal application of a methodology or clinical certification. - Related sources: S01 ### N13 · Does a randomized/double-blind label establish actual implementation? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Only the designated retained summaries were actually read. External original texts and older separate files remain unread in this work. - Current findings: TF01 is recorded as a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled parallel trial stratified by pretreatment TPP status. The current input is not independent verification of actual concealment, masking success, or adherence by group. - Why unverified: The design is reported, but information is insufficient to establish actual implementation/adherence or outcome-specific bias. - Reason for missing information: The design is reported, but information is insufficient to establish actual implementation/adherence or outcome-specific bias. - Required materials and conditions: S01 allocation/concealment, who was masked/masking success, baseline balance, actual adherence, and analysis handling - Materials to obtain first: S01 allocation/concealment, who was masked/masking success, baseline balance, actual adherence, and analysis handling - Further research: Compare the original methods with baseline, implementation, and analysis information for the handgrip outcome of interest. - Conditions for verification: Distinguish the reported parallel design/TPP stratification from unverified implementation details. - Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid erasing concealment, deviation, measurement, or selective-reporting problems on the basis of the design's name. - Application exceptions: Do not borrow methods from an indirect trial to assign the bias axis of an eligible trial. - Remaining uncertainty: The design is reported, but information is insufficient to establish actual implementation/adherence or outcome-specific bias. - Referenced methods: Internal case-specific adaptation of the retained M03/M04/M08/M15/M19 principles on questions, families, measurement/analysis/uncertainty, and harms. This is not formal application of a methodology or clinical certification. - Related sources: S01 ### N14 · Are 38 versus 38 and completion by all being turned into a handgrip analysis denominator? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Only the designated retained summaries were actually read. External original texts and older separate files remain unread in this work. - Current findings: The retained TF01 evidence records 76 participants, 38 thiamine/38 placebo, and completion by all. These were not automatically used as the analysis count for the target eligible population or the number of handgrip observations at every time point. The eligible handgrip effect/CI are null. - Why unverified: The verification levels of participation/completion information and handgrip-specific analysis denominators/intervals differ. - Reason for missing information: The verification levels of participation/completion information and handgrip-specific analysis denominators/intervals differ. - Required materials and conditions: Allocation/completion, handgrip measurement and analysis denominators, missingness, and variance/intervals - Materials to obtain first: Allocation/completion, handgrip measurement and analysis denominators, missingness, and variance/intervals - Further research: Link measurement/analysis counts at each time point in the original handgrip tables with missing-data handling and variance definitions. - Conditions for verification: Distinguish original participation/completion records from unverified handgrip analyses and effect intervals. - Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid assuming from participation/completion counts alone that all handgrip observations and analyses involve the same numbers. - Application exceptions: Retain the existing record of 76, 38/38, and completion by all without creating new sums. - Remaining uncertainty: The verification levels of participation/completion information and handgrip-specific analysis denominators/intervals differ. - Referenced methods: Internal case-specific adaptation of the retained M03/M04/M08/M15/M19 principles on questions, families, measurement/analysis/uncertainty, and harms. This is not formal application of a methodology or clinical certification. - Related sources: S01 ### N15 · Is handgrip nonsignificance being read as an effect of 0 or equivalence? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Only the designated retained summaries were actually read. External original texts and older separate files remain unread in this work. - Current findings: The retained Wilkinson record states that handgrip did not change significantly, but provides no quantitative treatment contrast, CI, or exact P. The historical extraction stating that Table 3 lacks a handgrip-change contrast is preserved, and no conclusion of no effect or equivalence was made. - Why unverified: There is a statement of nonsignificance, but magnitude, precision, and exclusion of a meaningful benefit have not been verified. - Reason for missing information: There is a statement of nonsignificance, but magnitude, precision, and exclusion of a meaningful benefit have not been verified. - Required materials and conditions: Original handgrip treatment contrast, variance, CI, exact P, and analysis population/model - Materials to obtain first: Original handgrip treatment contrast, variance, CI, exact P, and analysis population/model - Further research: If the original between-group handgrip estimate/interval and analysis definition are acquired, compare them separately from clinical importance. - Conditions for verification: Preserve the nonsignificant report together with unverified numerical values/intervals, and do not make new calculations. - Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid turning a statement about significance into a quantitative effect magnitude or exclusion of benefit. - Application exceptions: The statement that a quantitative contrast was not reported is limited to the retained extraction currently read. - Remaining uncertainty: There is a statement of nonsignificance, but magnitude, precision, and exclusion of a meaningful benefit have not been verified. - Referenced methods: Internal case-specific adaptation of the retained M03/M04/M08/M15/M19 principles on questions, families, measurement/analysis/uncertainty, and harms. This is not formal application of a methodology or clinical certification. - Related sources: S01 ### N16 · Is funding from indirect trials being borrowed as independent efficacy replication? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Only the designated retained summaries were actually read. External original texts and older separate files remain unread in this work. - Current findings: TF01 funding was from Canterbury Medical Research Foundation and Sanitarium Health Food Company; product provision was not reported. TF02 records Danish foundations, and TF03 records Russian foundation/State Task support; product provision is unverified. These were not borrowed to assign the independence axis for directly eligible evidence. - Why unverified: Funding is reported, but complete product/author conflict-of-interest information and eligible independent replication have not been verified. - Reason for missing information: Funding is reported, but complete product/author conflict-of-interest information and eligible independent replication have not been verified. - Required materials and conditions: TF01/TF02/TF03 funding, product provision, author declarations/patents, and family relationships - Materials to obtain first: TF01/TF02/TF03 funding, product provision, author declarations/patents, and family relationships - Further research: Compare original Funding/COI, product provision, and family relationships by outcome. - Conditions for verification: Distinguish retained funding and not-reported/unverified provision information from the currently unscored independence axis. - Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid turning the names of public/private funders into absence of product provision or conflicts of interest, or into independent replication. - Application exceptions: Do not automatically exclude a study because funding exists or establish bias because it is unknown. - Remaining uncertainty: Funding is reported, but complete product/author conflict-of-interest information and eligible independent replication have not been verified. - Referenced methods: Internal case-specific adaptation of the retained M03/M04/M08/M15/M19 principles on questions, families, measurement/analysis/uncertainty, and harms. This is not formal application of a methodology or clinical certification. - Related sources: S01, S04, S05 ### N17 · Is a handgrip excerpt from an IBD-fatigue crossover trial the target result? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Only the designated retained summaries were actually read. External original texts and older separate files remain unread in this work. - Current findings: TARIF is a 40-participant trial in quiescent IBD with severe chronic fatigue, with fatigue as the primary endpoint. An objectively weak enrollment population or prespecified low-strength treatment stratum was not verified, and handgrip nonsignificance is in the context of an indexed excerpt. Existing fatigue verdict 3086 was not changed. - Why unverified: Related human research exists, but population eligibility and handgrip values/denominators have not been verified. - Reason for missing information: Related human research exists, but population eligibility and handgrip values/denominators have not been verified. - Required materials and conditions: TARIF baseline reduced-strength enrollment/strata, handgrip analysis results, and fatigue/handgrip hierarchy - Materials to obtain first: TARIF baseline reduced-strength enrollment/strata, handgrip analysis results, and fatigue/handgrip hierarchy - Further research: Compare original handgrip subgroups, results, and denominators with the prespecified plan to reassess eligibility. - Conditions for verification: Separate the existence of the 40-participant fatigue trial from gaps concerning the target population and quantitative handgrip results. - Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid turning severe chronic fatigue and a secondary handgrip excerpt into a direct effect in an objectively weak population. - Application exceptions: Do not modify existing fatigue verdict 3086 or borrow it to score handgrip efficacy. - Remaining uncertainty: Related human research exists, but population eligibility and handgrip values/denominators have not been verified. - Referenced methods: Internal case-specific adaptation of the retained M03/M04/M08/M15/M19 principles on questions, families, measurement/analysis/uncertainty, and harms. This is not formal application of a methodology or clinical certification. - Related sources: S03, S04 ### N18 · Are the 40 participants across two periods being counted as independent participants or a between-group handgrip effect? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Only the designated retained summaries were actually read. External original texts and older separate files remain unread in this work. - Current findings: The retained TARIF record describes a 40-participant crossover trial comparing 600–1800 mg/day in 4-week periods separated by a 4-week washout. Handgrip analysis denominators, quantitative effect/CI, paired data, and carryover handling were not verified. Participants were not combined as independent people/trials across the two periods. - Why unverified: The crossover schedule is available, but the target handgrip estimand, denominator, model, and precision are unverified. - Reason for missing information: The crossover schedule is available, but the target handgrip estimand, denominator, model, and precision are unverified. - Required materials and conditions: 4-week treatment, 4-week washout, sequence/period, paired data, handgrip analysis counts, and carryover/model - Materials to obtain first: 4-week treatment, 4-week washout, sequence/period, paired data, handgrip analysis counts, and carryover/model - Further research: Verify sequence, period, paired variance, handling of carryover, and actual denominators in the original crossover handgrip analysis. - Conditions for verification: Distinguish the retained schedule and nominal dose from unverified handgrip-specific analysis. - Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid summing crossover participants as new people in each period or borrowing fatigue analysis as handgrip analysis. - Application exceptions: Do not create an eligible crossover estimand while population/endpoint mismatches remain unresolved. - Remaining uncertainty: The crossover schedule is available, but the target handgrip estimand, denominator, model, and precision are unverified. - Referenced methods: Internal case-specific adaptation of the retained M03/M04/M08/M15/M19 principles on questions, families, measurement/analysis/uncertainty, and harms. This is not formal application of a methodology or clinical certification. - Related sources: S03, S04 ### N19 · Have the NCT identifier and actual reading of the plan/amendment history been distinguished? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Only the designated retained summaries were actually read. External original texts and older separate files remain unread in this work. - Current findings: NCT03634735 is an identifier verified in the original report. At that time, an official page shell, web API error, and native API DNS failure prevented verification of the content; prospective registration timing was also not independently verified. No new registration lookup was performed in this work. - Why unverified: The number is available, but comparison of the actual plan, handgrip hierarchy, amendments, and prospective timing is unverified. - Reason for missing information: The number is available, but comparison of the actual plan, handgrip hierarchy, amendments, and prospective timing is unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Structured content of NCT03634735, original registration timing, handgrip hierarchy/analysis, and amendment history - Materials to obtain first: Structured content of NCT03634735, original registration timing, handgrip hierarchy/analysis, and amendment history - Further research: In an authorized update, compare the official registration/history with the handgrip plan in the original report. - Conditions for verification: Preserve verification of the identifier and unverified content/history, without newly assigning a current Inaccessible status. - Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid turning a registration number into prospective registration or completion of selective-reporting assessment. - Application exceptions: Distinguish historical shell/API/DNS failures from external access not attempted in this work. - Remaining uncertainty: The number is available, but comparison of the actual plan, handgrip hierarchy, amendments, and prospective timing is unverified. - Referenced methods: Internal case-specific adaptation of the retained M03/M04/M08/M15/M19 principles on questions, families, measurement/analysis/uncertainty, and harms. This is not formal application of a methodology or clinical certification. - Related sources: S18 ### N20 · Is the supplied 3086 extraction being read as new full-text reading or independent replication? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Only the designated retained summaries were actually read. External original texts and older separate files remain unread in this work. - Current findings: S19 is a lead from the previously supplied 3086 snapshot concerning the TARIF metabolic analysis and PMID34592862 maintenance follow-up. It is a historical record reusing the same family and oral HCl identity context, not new original full-text reading, fatigue reassessment, or handgrip replication in this work. - Why unverified: A supplied record exists, but report-specific handgrip results/eligibility and current comparison with original texts are unverified. - Reason for missing information: A supplied record exists, but report-specific handgrip results/eligibility and current comparison with original texts are unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Original identities of subsequent metabolic/maintenance reports, common family/population, and handgrip endpoint/access - Materials to obtain first: Original identities of subsequent metabolic/maintenance reports, common family/population, and handgrip endpoint/access - Further research: Verify the original identity, cohort, and handgrip data in each subsequent report, and link it to the same family. - Conditions for verification: Distinguish the historical supplied-material/multiple-report role of S19 from unverified handgrip results. - Why this condition is needed: This is needed to avoid counting the hydrochloride lead in previously supplied material and subsequent fatigue analyses as new handgrip trials. - Application exceptions: Do not record that older protected_input files or external subsequent full texts were opened in this work. - Remaining uncertainty: A supplied record exists, but report-specific handgrip results/eligibility and current comparison with original texts are unverified. - Referenced methods: Internal case-specific adaptation of the retained M03/M04/M08/M15/M19 principles on questions, families, measurement/analysis/uncertainty, and harms. This is not formal application of a methodology or clinical certification. - Related sources: S19 ### N21 · Are the 15, 14, 5, and 2 participants counted as the same trial of a pure oral preparation in adults? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Only the designated retained summaries were actually read. External original texts and older separate files remain unread in this work. - Current findings: The retained CMT supplementary material records 14 adults among 15 participants, 5 adult hydrochloride rows, and 2 participants identified in the long-term hydrochloride handgrip figure. A patient aged 16, derivatives, and other treatments are mixed in. These denominators were not used as a single randomized oral-treatment comparison in adults or as a total of independent participants. - Why unverified: The mixed composition is recorded, but there is no matched control or between-group handgrip estimate for a pure oral preparation in adults. - Reason for missing information: The mixed composition is recorded, but there is no matched control or between-group handgrip estimate for a pure oral preparation in adults. - Required materials and conditions: Age, formulation, other treatments, and participants/denominators for handgrip follow-up in each row of the CMT supplementary material - Materials to obtain first: Age, formulation, other treatments, and participants/denominators for handgrip follow-up in each row of the CMT supplementary material - Further research: Link age, formulation, and follow-up results from the original Table S1/figures to individual rows. - Conditions for verification: Preserve the supplementary material's 15 participants/14 adults, 5 adult HCl rows, and 2 participants with long-term HCl handgrip observations according to their respective roles. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid combining mixed formulations, a participant aged 16, other treatments, and different denominators into a single oral-treatment result in adults. - Application exceptions: The existing denominators are historical extractions; no additional totals or effect calculations are generated in this work. - Remaining uncertainty: The mixed composition is recorded, but there is no matched control or between-group handgrip estimate for a pure oral preparation in adults. - Referenced methods: Internal case-specific adaptation of the retained M03/M04/M08/M15/M19 principles on questions, families, measurement/analysis/uncertainty, and harms. This is not formal application of a methodology or clinical certification. - Related sources: S05, S06, S07 ### N22 · Were HCl in patients 1 and 3 distinguished from sulbutiamine in patient 2? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Only the designated retained summaries were actually read. External original texts and older separate files remain unread in this work. - Current findings: In the retained Figure 1 description, patients 1 and 3 received thiamine HCl, and patient 2 received sulbutiamine. The Russian/English reports and supplementary material belong to the same family. Before-and-after handgrip observations were not converted into a causal between-group effect, and derivatives were not pooled with ordinary thiamine. - Why unverified: Patients/formulations were distinguished, but a matched comparator and quantitative between-group handgrip effect remain unverified. - Reason for missing information: Patients/formulations were distinguished, but a matched comparator and quantitative between-group handgrip effect remain unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Patient-specific formulations, durations, handgrip follow-up, concomitant treatments/controls, and original measurements in Figure 1 - Materials to obtain first: Patient-specific formulations, durations, handgrip follow-up, concomitant treatments/controls, and original measurements in Figure 1 - Further research: Compare each patient's handgrip follow-up with actual exposure/concomitant treatment, and obtain comparison data under the same conditions separately. - Conditions for verification: Preserve individual formulations and uncontrolled follow-up without repurposing them as comparative efficacy evidence. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid converting favorable before-and-after observations into a causal between-group effect of ordinary thiamine. - Application exceptions: The Russian/English reports concern the same cohort/translation and are not independent replications. - Remaining uncertainty: Patients/formulations were distinguished, but a matched comparator and quantitative between-group handgrip effect remain unverified. - Referenced methods: Internal case-specific adaptation of the retained M03/M04/M08/M15/M19 principles on questions, families, measurement/analysis/uncertainty, and harms. This is not formal application of a methodology or clinical certification. - Related sources: S05, S06, S07 ### N23 · Is a healthy-person biomarker comparison an untreated handgrip control? Verification status: Met Reading scope: Only the designated retained summaries were actually read. External original texts and older separate files remain unread in this work. - Current findings: The currently retained record does not treat the healthy metabolic comparison group as an untreated long-term handgrip control. Figure S2 contains biomarker data, not a handgrip treatment contrast. The visual review of 3 supplementary PDF pages for S06 is a historical access record. - Why unverified: This verifies the boundary preventing repurposing of other outcomes/controls. It does not establish acquisition of an eligible handgrip comparison. - Reason for missing information: This verifies the boundary preventing repurposing of other outcomes/controls. It does not establish acquisition of an eligible handgrip comparison. - Required materials and conditions: Actual comparators, tests, and time points for the biomarker comparison/Figure S2 and long-term handgrip observations - Materials to obtain first: Actual comparators, tests, and time points for the biomarker comparison/Figure S2 and long-term handgrip observations - Further research: Check the original materials for an actual control with the same handgrip measurement, time point, and exposure. - Conditions for verification: Record the comparative meaning of biomarkers and handgrip, and the unverified control, separately. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid importing healthy controls for different outcomes/time points into the same handgrip efficacy comparison. - Application exceptions: Distinguish the historical record of visual review of 3 supplementary PDF pages from the current reading of the summary. - Remaining uncertainty: This verifies the boundary preventing repurposing of other outcomes/controls. It does not establish acquisition of an eligible handgrip comparison. - Referenced methods: Internal case-specific adaptation of the retained M03/M04/M08/M15/M19 principles on questions, families, measurement/analysis/uncertainty, and harms. This is not formal application of a methodology or clinical certification. - Related sources: S05, S06 ### N24 · Were the existence of a correction and verification of its actual full text distinguished? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Only the designated retained summaries were actually read. External original texts and older separate files remain unread in this work. - Current findings: S08 records the existence of a formal correction, but its full text was inaccessible at the time. Distinguish the original publisher's page-range correction of 1–22→1161–1182 from the search excerpt about gray shading in Table3. The excerpt was not promoted to verified correction text, and no new correction lookup was performed in this work. - Why unverified: The existence/bibliographic record of a correction and its actual impact on clinical text have different levels of verification. - Reason for missing information: The existence/bibliographic record of a correction and its actual impact on clinical text have different levels of verification. - Required materials and conditions: Original/corrected versions, page changes, scope of text/table corrections, and effects on attribution of handgrip observations - Materials to obtain first: Original/corrected versions, page changes, scope of text/table corrections, and effects on attribution of handgrip observations - Further research: During a permitted update, compare the complete correction with the original table and review linked observations/statuses. - Conditions for verification: Preserve the historical correction notice, page correction, unacquired full text, and excerpt limitations. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid treating a bibliographic correction, inaccessible full text, or search excerpt as a fully verified clinical correction. - Application exceptions: Do not count a correction within the same family as a new trial or use the gray-shading excerpt as a verified fact. - Remaining uncertainty: The existence/bibliographic record of a correction and its actual impact on clinical text have different levels of verification. - Referenced methods: Internal case-specific adaptation of the retained M03/M04/M08/M15/M19 principles on questions, families, measurement/analysis/uncertainty, and harms. This is not formal application of a methodology or clinical certification. - Related sources: S08 ### N25 · Are the two DM1 cases being read as an oral-treatment handgrip comparison? Verification status: Met Reading scope: Only the designated retained summaries were actually read. External original texts and older separate files remain unread in this work. - Current findings: The two DM1 cases in S09 involved intramuscular thiamine 100 mg 2 times per week, not a controlled oral-treatment dynamometer trial. The historical full_text_HTML access record was not reused as a claim of current full-text reading. - Why unverified: This is a retained classification verifying differences in route/design, not verification of target efficacy. - Reason for missing information: This is a retained classification verifying differences in route/design, not verification of target efficacy. - Required materials and conditions: Actual route, 100 mg 2 times per week, symptoms/measurements, and presence or absence of a control in the DM1 cases - Materials to obtain first: Actual route, 100 mg 2 times per week, symptoms/measurements, and presence or absence of a control in the DM1 cases - Further research: Preserve the exposures/measurements in the original cases and review the target oral-treatment handgrip comparison using separate materials. - Conditions for verification: Indicate the 2 cases, injection route, uncontrolled design, and current non-reading of the external full text. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid transferring uncontrolled improvement with intramuscular injections to an effect of single-ingredient oral treatment on handgrip. - Application exceptions: Preserve the existence of the cases rather than recasting it as an absence of human research; distinguish only their eligibility for the target question. - Remaining uncertainty: This is a retained classification verifying differences in route/design, not verification of target efficacy. - Referenced methods: Internal case-specific adaptation of the retained M03/M04/M08/M15/M19 principles on questions, families, measurement/analysis/uncertainty, and harms. This is not formal application of a methodology or clinical certification. - Related sources: S09 ### N26 · Is well-being in healthy older women being transferred to a handgrip effect in people with low muscle strength? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Only the designated retained summaries were actually read. External original texts and older separate files remain unread in this work. - Current findings: The retained S10 record concerns 80 healthy older women, 10 mg/day, and 6 weeks of double-blind treatment following a 4-week baseline. Selection for low muscle strength and a separate objective muscle-strength contrast were not verified, and well-being results were not borrowed as a handgrip benefit. - Why unverified: An adjacent trial exists, but the target low-strength population/handgrip outcome remains unverified. - Reason for missing information: An adjacent trial exists, but the target low-strength population/handgrip outcome remains unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Smidt's baseline definition of low muscle strength, handgrip results, health/well-being endpoints, and denominators - Materials to obtain first: Smidt's baseline definition of low muscle strength, handgrip results, health/well-being endpoints, and denominators - Further research: If original eligibility criteria/handgrip measurements are available, compare them with the conditions of the same question. - Conditions for verification: Distinguish the context of 80 participants/10 mg/6 weeks and a 4-week baseline from gaps in the target population/endpoint. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid treating older age, marginal thiamine status, and improved well-being as the same handgrip outcome in objectively weak participants. - Application exceptions: Preserve the existence of the original trial in healthy participants without newly importing an effect size. - Remaining uncertainty: An adjacent trial exists, but the target low-strength population/handgrip outcome remains unverified. - Referenced methods: Internal case-specific adaptation of the retained M03/M04/M08/M15/M19 principles on questions, families, measurement/analysis/uncertainty, and harms. This is not formal application of a methodology or clinical certification. - Related sources: S10 ### N27 · Are the TTFD title and landing page being read as numerical evidence for ordinary thiamine? Verification status: Met Reading scope: Only the designated retained summaries were actually read. External original texts and older separate files remain unread in this work. - Current findings: S11 identifies a different molecule from the title/landing page of an original TTFD article. The full text was not extracted, and no numerical results are claimed. It was not pooled as direct evidence for the ordinary-thiamine question. - Why unverified: This verifies the molecular/access boundary, not original effect estimates or target efficacy. - Reason for missing information: This verifies the molecular/access boundary, not original effect estimates or target efficacy. - Required materials and conditions: Original molecular identity, title/material type, and level of access to actual population/measurement results - Materials to obtain first: Original molecular identity, title/material type, and level of access to actual population/measurement results - Further research: Link the derivative to a separate question and verify direct results for ordinary thiamine separately. - Conditions for verification: Preserve both the molecular exclusion of TTFD and the lack of extraction of original numerical results. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid pooling a derivative and an original article verified only at title level with handgrip effects of ordinary thiamine. - Application exceptions: Do not turn 'double blind' in a title into a complete extraction of methods/numbers. - Remaining uncertainty: This verifies the molecular/access boundary, not original effect estimates or target efficacy. - Referenced methods: Internal case-specific adaptation of the retained M03/M04/M08/M15/M19 principles on questions, families, measurement/analysis/uncertainty, and harms. This is not formal application of a methodology or clinical certification. - Related sources: S11 ### N28 · Is an isokinetic P>0.05 in healthy participants being read as no handgrip effect? Verification status: Met Reading scope: Only the designated retained summaries were actually read. External original texts and older separate files remain unread in this work. - Current findings: Doyle concerns a placebo crossover study of allithiamine 1 g/day for 5 days in 15 healthy students, with isokinetic muscle performance measured using Biodex System2. P>0.05 does not establish no effect or equivalence for ordinary thiamine, adults with low muscle strength, and handgrip. - Why unverified: This verifies the boundary for a different molecule/population/endpoint. The target effect size/interval remains unverified. - Reason for missing information: This verifies the boundary for a different molecule/population/endpoint. The target effect size/interval remains unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Allithiamine, 15 healthy students, 5 days/1 g, Biodex isokinetic results, and original intervals - Materials to obtain first: Allithiamine, 15 healthy students, 5 days/1 g, Biodex isokinetic results, and original intervals - Further research: Attribute the original result to its derivative/isokinetic question and review the handgrip comparison separately. - Conditions for verification: Indicate differences in molecule/population/endpoint together with the limitations of nonsignificance. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid converting nonsignificance for a derivative, a different population, and a different muscle-strength endpoint into a target effect of 0. - Application exceptions: The existing P>0.05 is a historical report; no exact P value or equivalence interval is generated. - Remaining uncertainty: This verifies the boundary for a different molecule/population/endpoint. The target effect size/interval remains unverified. - Referenced methods: Internal case-specific adaptation of the retained M03/M04/M08/M15/M19 principles on questions, families, measurement/analysis/uncertainty, and harms. This is not formal application of a methodology or clinical certification. - Related sources: S12 ### N29 · Were FIM recovery, actual handgrip, and an oral-treatment comparison distinguished? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Only the designated retained summaries were actually read. External original texts and older separate files remain unread in this work. - Current findings: S13 contains FIM functional-limitation/recovery data. Detailed methods and route/comparator could not be verified from the historical indexed abstract excerpt and full-text 402 failure record. FIM was not converted into a separate handgrip contrast. - Why unverified: Adjacent functional data exist, but the identity of the target oral treatment/handgrip outcome/comparator remains unverified. - Reason for missing information: Adjacent functional data exist, but the identity of the target oral treatment/handgrip outcome/comparator remains unverified. - Required materials and conditions: FIM results, actual route/comparator, separate handgrip testing, and access to original methods - Materials to obtain first: FIM results, actual route/comparator, separate handgrip testing, and access to original methods - Further research: If original methods/handgrip data are acquired, compare the actual route, control, and endpoint for correspondence. - Conditions for verification: Retain the general functional endpoint and unverified route/methods. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid transferring overall function in deficiency neuropathy to an isolated handgrip outcome. - Application exceptions: Do not infer an oral preparation/comparator from inaccessible methods. - Remaining uncertainty: Adjacent functional data exist, but the identity of the target oral treatment/handgrip outcome/comparator remains unverified. - Referenced methods: Internal case-specific adaptation of the retained M03/M04/M08/M15/M19 principles on questions, families, measurement/analysis/uncertainty, and harms. This is not formal application of a methodology or clinical certification. - Related sources: S13 ### N30 · Do PBC fatigue and B-vitamin/magnesium results replicate a single-ingredient handgrip effect? Verification status: Met Reading scope: Only the designated retained summaries were actually read. External original texts and older separate files remain unread in this work. - Current findings: S20 is a PBC fatigue trial and is not counted as a refutation or replication for handgrip. S21 is a lead for an IBD fatigue trial of combined B1/B6/B12+magnesium, from which the handgrip efficacy of B1 alone cannot be isolated. The unverified DOI in the 2026 record and the status of the supplied composition snapshot were preserved. - Why unverified: This verifies the boundary for another disease, a combination, and fatigue. It does not establish acquisition of a target handgrip comparison. - Reason for missing information: This verifies the boundary for another disease, a combination, and fatigue. It does not establish acquisition of a target handgrip comparison. - Required materials and conditions: The disease/endpoint in S20 and the combined ingredients/fatigue question and original access in S21 - Materials to obtain first: The disease/endpoint in S20 and the combined ingredients/fatigue question and original access in S21 - Further research: Separate actual results by question and review the single-ingredient handgrip comparison using separate materials. - Conditions for verification: Preserve differences in disease/endpoint/ingredient eligibility for each source. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid attributing results for fatigue in another disease or for a combined intervention to ordinary thiamine alone for handgrip. - Application exceptions: Do not borrow effect sizes or rescore the existing fatigue assessment. - Remaining uncertainty: This verifies the boundary for another disease, a combination, and fatigue. It does not establish acquisition of a target handgrip comparison. - Referenced methods: Internal case-specific adaptation of the retained M03/M04/M08/M15/M19 principles on questions, families, measurement/analysis/uncertainty, and harms. This is not formal application of a methodology or clinical certification. - Related sources: S20, S21 ### N31 · Is a micronutrient association in Korean adults being recast as supplementation efficacy? Verification status: Met Reading scope: Only the designated retained summaries were actually read. External original texts and older separate files remain unread in this work. - Current findings: S23 contains dietary observational data on micronutrients and handgrip in Korean adults. It is not randomized assignment to single-ingredient oral supplementation; dietary intake was not converted into a supplementation dose, and the association was not converted into causal efficacy. - Why unverified: This verifies the association/intervention boundary, not direct handgrip efficacy or a need for supplementation. - Reason for missing information: This verifies the association/intervention boundary, not direct handgrip efficacy or a need for supplementation. - Required materials and conditions: Dietary observational design, direction of the exposure/handgrip association, and presence or absence of an actual randomized supplementation comparison - Materials to obtain first: Dietary observational design, direction of the exposure/handgrip association, and presence or absence of an actual randomized supplementation comparison - Further research: Link the dietary association to its original direction and verify a single-ingredient supplementation handgrip comparison separately. - Conditions for verification: Indicate the difference between questions about observational associations and intervention comparisons. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid converting a dietary-intake association into a single-ingredient treatment or a supplementation dose/need. - Application exceptions: Do not calculate a supplementation dose from dietary intake in this work or import the original observational effect. - Remaining uncertainty: This verifies the association/intervention boundary, not direct handgrip efficacy or a need for supplementation. - Referenced methods: Internal case-specific adaptation of the retained M03/M04/M08/M15/M19 principles on questions, families, measurement/analysis/uncertainty, and harms. This is not formal application of a methodology or clinical certification. - Related sources: S23 ### N32 · How should 23 sources, 11 families, and 0 directly eligible comparisons be interpreted? Verification status: Met Reading scope: Only the designated retained summaries were actually read. External original texts and older separate files remain unread in this work. - Current findings: The 23 current sources/citations entries are a provenance list mixing clinical reports, supplements/corrections, registrations, safety sources, reviews, and bibliographic leads. The records of 11 structural families and 0 directly eligible comparisons are preserved without interpreting them as an absence of all human research. CMT translations/supplements/corrections and TARIF follow-up reports belong to their respective existing families; the TF01 related report from 2000 remains only an unverified lead for possibly shared recruitment of 222 people. - Why unverified: This verifies the retained family/duplication policy. Total unique study/participant counts from a comprehensive search have not been verified. - Reason for missing information: This verifies the retained family/duplication policy. Total unique study/participant counts from a comprehensive search have not been verified. - Required materials and conditions: Links from report to study/case family to endpoint/time point; provisionally related reports; duplication/unique counts - Materials to obtain first: Links from report to study/case family to endpoint/time point; provisionally related reports; duplication/unique counts - Further research: Verify recruitment/registration/population/result links for each report and preserve relationships identified as the same or unknown. - Conditions for verification: Distinguish the current structural family/report relationships from unverified overall unique study/participant counts. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid counting bibliographic records, registrations, safety sources, reviews, and access attempts as 23 trials, or converting 0 directly eligible comparisons into 0 human studies. - Application exceptions: Do not treat the TF01 lead for potentially shared recruitment of 222 people as a verified independent trial or an additional denominator. - Remaining uncertainty: This verifies the retained family/duplication policy. Total unique study/participant counts from a comprehensive search have not been verified. - Referenced methods: Internal case-specific adaptation of the retained M03/M04/M08/M15/M19 principles on questions, families, measurement/analysis/uncertainty, and harms. This is not formal application of a methodology or clinical certification. - Related sources: S01, S02, S03, S04, S05, S06, S07, S08, S18, S19, S22 ### N33 · Is an unverified effect being filled in using within-group changes or baseline handgrip? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Only the designated retained summaries were actually read. External original texts and older separate files remain unread in this work. - Current findings: For eligible handgrip, primary_effect, primary_CI, and primary_p are null, and the effect direction is unknown. E0/E+ was not assigned from within-group changes, baseline handgrip, or adjacent nonsignificant findings, and no new clinical calculations were performed in this work. - Why unverified: The eligible effect of interest, original analysis population/model, and estimate/interval remain unverified. - Reason for missing information: The eligible effect of interest, original analysis population/model, and estimate/interval remain unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Eligible between-group handgrip estimand; ITT/PP/adjustment; original effect/CI/exact P; denominators - Materials to obtain first: Eligible between-group handgrip estimand; ITT/PP/adjustment; original effect/CI/exact P; denominators - Further research: Verify the effect of interest, population, and between-group estimate/interval together in an eligible original analysis. - Conditions for verification: Keep primary_effect/CI/P null and no_effect_claim=false. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid constructing a target causal effect from baseline values, nonsignificance, or favorable before-and-after observations in adjacent studies. - Application exceptions: Do not fill invalid raw calculation suggestions or an eligibility-schema gap with an effect of 0. - Remaining uncertainty: The eligible effect of interest, original analysis population/model, and estimate/interval remain unverified. - Referenced methods: Internal case-specific adaptation of the retained M03/M04/M08/M15/M19 principles on questions, families, measurement/analysis/uncertainty, and harms. This is not formal application of a methodology or clinical certification. - Related sources: S01, S03, S05 ### N34 · Does objective handgrip guarantee a benefit in daily function or clinical events? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Only the designated retained summaries were actually read. External original texts and older separate files remain unread in this work. - Current findings: An eligible between-group CI and MCID have not been verified. Objective measurement alone does not make handgrip H or P, and force measurement differs from improvement in daily function. The existing axes remain unscored; no arbitrary P/S, C1/C0/CX, or participant-count/duration criteria were assigned. - Why unverified: Without an effect interval, its importance, and the meaning of the actual measurement, a meaningful benefit can neither be established nor ruled out. - Reason for missing information: Without an effect interval, its importance, and the meaning of the actual measurement, a meaningful benefit can neither be established nor ruled out. - Required materials and conditions: Eligible handgrip interval, justified important difference, meaning of the test, and separate daily-function outcomes - Materials to obtain first: Eligible handgrip interval, justified important difference, meaning of the test, and separate daily-function outcomes - Further research: Verify the original interval and a valid criterion for handgrip importance; review function/events separately using direct data. - Conditions for verification: Distinguish unverified importance/intervals and test meaning from separate function/event questions. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid arbitrarily establishing patient-important benefit, H/P, or equivalence from objectivity, significance, or sample size. - Application exceptions: Do not assign an unsupported MCID, required participant count/duration, or P/S as new numbers/axes. - Remaining uncertainty: Without an effect interval, its importance, and the meaning of the actual measurement, a meaningful benefit can neither be established nor ruled out. - Referenced methods: Internal case-specific adaptation of the retained M03/M04/M08/M15/M19 principles on questions, families, measurement/analysis/uncertainty, and harms. This is not formal application of a methodology or clinical certification. - Related sources: ### N35 · Is selective reporting being established merely because an eligible registration/plan is unavailable? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Only the designated retained summaries were actually read. External original texts and older separate files remain unread in this work. - Current findings: No directly eligible handgrip trial could be selected, so comparison with its registration/plan remains unverified. The unverified TF01 registration, the distinction between TF03 ethics approval and trial registration, and TARIF history-access limitations were preserved. These are not interpreted as confirmed selective reporting. - Why unverified: Materials needed to verify an eligible comparison of the prespecified plan with the report and the original reasons for changes remain unverified. - Reason for missing information: Materials needed to verify an eligible comparison of the prespecified plan with the report and the original reasons for changes remain unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Eligible original registration/protocol/analysis plan, endpoints/time points, reasons for changes, and corrected versions - Materials to obtain first: Eligible original registration/protocol/analysis plan, endpoints/time points, reasons for changes, and corrected versions - Further research: After comparing an actual eligible plan with the handgrip report, record the scope of changes/selection. - Conditions for verification: Indicate the actual eligible plan that could not be compared and access limitations for adjacent materials. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid converting unacquired plans into confirmed non-registration, selective reporting, or absence of original results. - Application exceptions: Do not use unverified TF01/TF03 registrations or the TARIF identifier as verification of an eligible plan. - Remaining uncertainty: Materials needed to verify an eligible comparison of the prespecified plan with the report and the original reasons for changes remain unverified. - Referenced methods: Internal case-specific adaptation of the retained M03/M04/M08/M15/M19 principles on questions, families, measurement/analysis/uncertainty, and harms. This is not formal application of a methodology or clinical certification. - Related sources: S01, S05, S18 ### N36 · Does a separate 100 mg SmPC provide the safety denominator for the target exposure? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Only the designated retained summaries were actually read. External original texts and older separate files remain unread in this work. - Current findings: S15 records nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and hypersensitivity with unknown frequency for a specific oral thiamine hydrochloride 100 mg product. Allergy to product excipients is also separate. Harm denominators/frequencies in a target eligible trial and doses safe for long-term use in renal/hepatic impairment remain unverified. - Why unverified: A separate product provides harm context, but incidence and long-term safety for the target population/actual exposure have not been verified. - Reason for missing information: A separate product provides harm context, but incidence and long-term safety for the target population/actual exposure have not been verified. - Required materials and conditions: Product-specific adverse reactions/frequencies in S15; eligible actual exposure/duration and population; collection, discontinuations, and denominators - Materials to obtain first: Product-specific adverse reactions/frequencies in S15; eligible actual exposure/duration and population; collection, discontinuations, and denominators - Further research: Link adverse-event collection, group-specific denominators/durations, and discontinuations for an eligible exposure to the product identity. - Conditions for verification: Distinguish product-specific reactions from unverified target frequencies/denominators and doses safe for long-term use. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid transferring precautions for an authorized product to individual safety or incidence in the target handgrip trial. - Application exceptions: Preserve existing cautions without deleting the efficacy manuscript because of gaps in harm information. - Remaining uncertainty: A separate product provides harm context, but incidence and long-term safety for the target population/actual exposure have not been verified. - Referenced methods: Internal case-specific adaptation of the retained M03/M04/M08/M15/M19 principles on questions, families, measurement/analysis/uncertainty, and harms. This is not formal application of a methodology or clinical certification. - Related sources: S15 ### N37 · Are injection-related hypersensitivity and product-specific pregnancy/pediatric restrictions being generalized? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Only the designated retained summaries were actually read. External original texts and older separate files remain unread in this work. - Current findings: Reports of severe hypersensitivity were mainly observed with injections, and their risk rate is not applied to oral preparations. The S15 product is not intended for pregnancy/lactation and is not recommended below 3 years of age, but these restrictions are not generalized to contraindications to all nutritional thiamine intake. The adult handgrip question is not extended to children/pregnancy. - Why unverified: Route/product-specific cautions exist, but these materials do not verify population-specific safety in the target trial. - Reason for missing information: Route/product-specific cautions exist, but these materials do not verify population-specific safety in the target trial. - Required materials and conditions: Route of hypersensitivity reactions, product-specific pregnancy/lactation and age recommendations, and applicability to populations - Materials to obtain first: Route of hypersensitivity reactions, product-specific pregnancy/lactation and age recommendations, and applicability to populations - Further research: Link safety materials for the relevant product/route/population separately from the efficacy question. - Conditions for verification: Indicate historical cautions limited to the route/product/population without claiming established safety. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid turning an injection-related anaphylaxis risk rate or product restrictions into contraindications to all oral nutritional intake. - Application exceptions: Do not extend the adult handgrip question to children or pregnancy. - Remaining uncertainty: Route/product-specific cautions exist, but these materials do not verify population-specific safety in the target trial. - Referenced methods: Internal case-specific adaptation of the retained M03/M04/M08/M15/M19 principles on questions, families, measurement/analysis/uncertainty, and harms. This is not formal application of a methodology or clinical certification. - Related sources: S15 ### N38 · Do dialysis, malabsorption, and refeeding management establish the benefit of general handgrip supplementation? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Only the designated retained summaries were actually read. External original texts and older separate files remain unread in this work. - Current findings: Furosemide may affect thiamine status, and fluorouracil requires separate review. Requirements in dialysis/malabsorption and medical management of alcohol-related deficiency/refeeding do not establish general high-dose oral handgrip efficacy or a safety upper limit. Combined NICE management is not used as evidence for single-ingredient efficacy. - Why unverified: Medical/drug caution contexts exist, but direct efficacy, the full range of interactions, and safety limits for the target exposure remain unverified. - Reason for missing information: Medical/drug caution contexts exist, but direct efficacy, the full range of interactions, and safety limits for the target exposure remain unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Drug interactions, requirements in dialysis/malabsorption, and actual medical management of alcohol-related deficiency/refeeding - Materials to obtain first: Drug interactions, requirements in dialysis/malabsorption, and actual medical management of alcohol-related deficiency/refeeding - Further research: Review relevant drugs/medical situations by product/population, separately from direct target handgrip data. - Conditions for verification: Distinguish the original medical/drug context from separate gaps in efficacy/safety. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid converting different requirements or combined medical management into high-dose oral handgrip efficacy or a safety upper limit. - Application exceptions: Do not assert an absence of interactions or interpret this as an instruction to stop necessary deficiency treatment. - Remaining uncertainty: Medical/drug caution contexts exist, but direct efficacy, the full range of interactions, and safety limits for the target exposure remain unverified. - Referenced methods: Internal case-specific adaptation of the retained M03/M04/M08/M15/M19 principles on questions, families, measurement/analysis/uncertainty, and harms. This is not formal application of a methodology or clinical certification. - Related sources: S14, S16, S17 ### N39 · Are the absence of an established UL and water solubility being read as unlimited safety? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Only the designated retained summaries were actually read. External original texts and older separate files remain unread in this work. - Current findings: Retained S16 and safety_detail state that no UL was established because toxicity data were insufficient. Water solubility and urinary excretion do not guarantee unlimited safety. The target dose safe for long-term use in renal/hepatic impairment also remains unverified, and study doses are not individual recommendations. - Why unverified: The reason for the absence of a UL is recorded, but this does not verify target high-dose/long-term safety. - Reason for missing information: The reason for the absence of a UL is recorded, but this does not verify target high-dose/long-term safety. - Required materials and conditions: Reason no UL was established, actual toxicity data, safety by population/dose/duration, and harm denominators - Materials to obtain first: Reason no UL was established, actual toxicity data, safety by population/dose/duration, and harm denominators - Further research: If toxicity/harm data for a population/exposure are added, compare them with the original product and denominator/duration. - Conditions for verification: Record both the reason no limit was established and the unverified therapeutic dose/long-term safety. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid turning insufficient data, water solubility, or excretion into a guarantee of high-dose safety for an individual. - Application exceptions: Do not propose unsupported numerical safety limits or doses. - Remaining uncertainty: The reason for the absence of a UL is recorded, but this does not verify target high-dose/long-term safety. - Referenced methods: Internal case-specific adaptation of the retained M03/M04/M08/M15/M19 principles on questions, families, measurement/analysis/uncertainty, and harms. This is not formal application of a methodology or clinical certification. - Related sources: S14, S16 ### N40 · Are data on optimal dose, maintenance, subgroups, and falls/mortality being imposed as mandatory for this table? Verification status: Not applicable Reading scope: Only the designated retained summaries were actually read. External original texts and older separate files remain unread in this work. - Current findings: The current standalone question concerns comparative handgrip efficacy, not optimal dose, persistence after discontinuation, or prevention of falls/mortality. Extension studies are not imposed as requirements for this narrow question. Unverified actual target dose, duration/principal time point, and direct handgrip effect remain recorded in earlier rows. - Why unverified: Requiring expanded questions is not applicable. This does not replace gaps in the original handgrip exposure/population/outcome or verify effects for expanded questions. - Reason for missing information: Requiring expanded questions is not applicable. This does not replace gaps in the original handgrip exposure/population/outcome or verify effects for expanded questions. - Required materials and conditions: Identity and direct evidence for the original handgrip question and separate dose, maintenance, function, and event extensions - Materials to obtain first: Identity and direct evidence for the original handgrip question and separate dose, maintenance, function, and event extensions - Further research: If an expanded question is raised separately, review direct dose, follow-up, subgroup, function, and event results separately. - Conditions for verification: Do not impose the extensions themselves as requirements for the current question; distinguish them from actual exposure/denominator gaps. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid requiring every extension study for a narrow, unresolved handgrip question or expanding an adjacent main effect. - Application exceptions: Do not turn unverified exposure/duration essential to the original comparative handgrip question into NA. - Remaining uncertainty: Requiring expanded questions is not applicable. This does not replace gaps in the original handgrip exposure/population/outcome or verify effects for expanded questions. - Referenced methods: Internal case-specific adaptation of the retained M03/M04/M08/M15/M19 principles on questions, families, measurement/analysis/uncertainty, and harms. This is not formal application of a methodology or clinical certification. - Related sources: ### N41 · Is unverified eligibility in the recorded search being declared an absence of human research? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Only the designated retained summaries were actually read. External original texts and older separate files remain unread in this work. - Current findings: The original evidence cutoff date is 2026-09-16, and the original reader-facing answer limits its statement to no directly eligible controlled result being verified in the recorded search. The S22 review serves only as a literature map/indexed excerpt and is not used for decisive numbers or scoring. No new search, correction/retraction lookup, or reading of old search/extraction files was performed in this work. - Why unverified: A retained search scope exists, but an up-to-date exhaustive/unpublished-study/correction check and actual comparison with old separate files were not performed. - Reason for missing information: A retained search scope exists, but an up-to-date exhaustive/unpublished-study/correction check and actual comparison with old separate files were not performed. - Required materials and conditions: The 2026-09-16 search/cutoff date, actual inputs/failures, and scope for unpublished studies, registrations, corrections, and retractions - Materials to obtain first: The 2026-09-16 search/cutoff date, actual inputs/failures, and scope for unpublished studies, registrations, corrections, and retractions - Further research: In a separately permitted update, record actual search/registration/correction results and the scope of failures/unverified information. - Conditions for verification: Distinguish the scope of the historical search/literature map and current local reading from incomplete external verification. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid overstating the scope of an old search and the current table conversion as an up-to-date comprehensive search. - Application exceptions: Do not label the absence of external searching in this work or unacquired full texts as 0 studies or no recent corrections. - Remaining uncertainty: A retained search scope exists, but an up-to-date exhaustive/unpublished-study/correction check and actual comparison with old separate files were not performed. - Referenced methods: Internal case-specific adaptation of the retained M03/M04/M08/M15/M19 principles on questions, families, measurement/analysis/uncertainty, and harms. This is not formal application of a methodology or clinical certification. - Related sources: S22 ### N42 · Are the original ?/null, document A, and calculator exception being read as new evidence? Verification status: Met Reading scope: Only the designated retained summaries were actually read. External original texts and older separate files remain unread in this work. - Current findings: The original grade is ?, the score is null, the safety label is Caution, and the downstream evidence axes remain unscored. Preserve human_study_exists=true alongside unverified direct eligibility. The calculator's eligibility gap/invalid raw suggestion is an unadopted historical record; the calculator was not run in this work. Document A/ChatGPT self-review is not independent clinical review or efficacy certification. - Why unverified: This verifies the distinction between the roles of original values and document/calculation metadata. It is not a new clinical judgment or score. - Reason for missing information: This verifies the distinction between the roles of original values and document/calculation metadata. It is not a new clinical judgment or score. - Required materials and conditions: Original grade/score, unscored axes, eligibility exception, document evaluation, and reviewer identity - Materials to obtain first: Original grade/score, unscored axes, eligibility exception, document evaluation, and reviewer identity - Further research: Link new direct evidence or a schema change to a separate event/version and judgment. - Conditions for verification: Preserve the original ?/null/Caution, document A/self-review, and human_study_exists=true. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid changing the original current values into a score of 0, no effect, no human research, or independent clinical certification. - Application exceptions: The invalid raw suggestion and calculator-schema problem are historical records, not a calculator run/reassessment in this work. - Remaining uncertainty: This verifies the distinction between the roles of original values and document/calculation metadata. It is not a new clinical judgment or score. - Referenced methods: Internal case-specific adaptation of the retained M03/M04/M08/M15/M19 principles on questions, families, measurement/analysis/uncertainty, and harms. This is not formal application of a methodology or clinical certification. - Related sources: ### N43 · Are summary reading and historical full-text access being shown as the same verification? Verification status: Met Reading scope: Only the designated retained summaries were actually read. External original texts and older separate files remain unread in this work. - Current findings: What was read in this work was the KO/evidence/bibliography/historical-access content of the retained summaries. Distinguish historical records of the reproduced HTML for S01, supplementary PDF for S06, full text for S09, and official safety full texts from the current non-reading of all external materials. snapshot_policy covers limited extraction/bibliography, not redistributed copies of original full texts. Link summary reading through exact locations/values and retained-summary SHAs. - Why unverified: This verifies exact retained-summary linkage. It is not current clinical full-text reading or verification of external original bytes. - Reason for missing information: This verifies exact retained-summary linkage. It is not current clinical full-text reading or verification of external original bytes. - Required materials and conditions: Physical type, historical access level/location, current non-reading, and retained-summary pointer/literal/SHA for each material - Materials to obtain first: Physical type, historical access level/location, current non-reading, and retained-summary pointer/literal/SHA for each material - Further research: If new materials are permitted, link actual acquisition/reading and original bytes/versions to the relevant rows/materials. - Conditions for verification: Link summaries to exact retained locations and indicate current non-attempted/non-read external access and the absence of preserved original bytes. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid turning local-summary reading or historical 3rd-party full-text/abstract access or registration-access failures into current reading of original clinical sources. - Application exceptions: The stored-manuscript SHA is not a hash of the original bytes of an external PDF/original article. - Remaining uncertainty: This verifies exact retained-summary linkage. It is not current clinical full-text reading or verification of external original bytes. - Referenced methods: Internal case-specific adaptation of the retained M03/M04/M08/M15/M19 principles on questions, families, measurement/analysis/uncertainty, and harms. This is not formal application of a methodology or clinical certification. - Related sources: S01, S06, S09, S14, S15, S16, S18, S19 ### N44 · Is historical deployment metadata being read as publication in this work? Verification status: Met Reading scope: Only the designated retained summaries were actually read. External original texts and older separate files remain unread in this work. - Current findings: Preserve current ID3117, the original URL, the 2026-09-16 cutoff/publication date, historical server_deployed metadata, and revision_history. The review date of the retained sheet is 2026-10-05, and no public deployment was performed in that review. New eligible comparisons, original methods/strata, plans, or corrections/errors trigger separate review of rows/conditions/materials. - Why unverified: This verifies preservation of identity/date/update links. It is not publication in this work or verification of the latest corrections. - Reason for missing information: This verifies preservation of identity/date/update links. It is not publication in this work or verification of the latest corrections. - Required materials and conditions: Current ID/URL, evidence/review dates, original revision/deployment metadata, and links between update events/criteria versions - Materials to obtain first: Current ID/URL, evidence/review dates, original revision/deployment metadata, and links between update events/criteria versions - Further research: If new materials/corrections are permitted, preserve the full original text and review it with links to events, versions, and change decisions. - Conditions for verification: Distinguish current identity/original dates from this review/unpublished status and establish update rules for linked rows. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid presenting historical site deployment and current local-sheet creation as the same completion. - Application exceptions: Preserve original materials, unfavorable results, unverified information, and assessments; record changed conditions and new evidence separately. - Remaining uncertainty: This verifies preservation of identity/date/update links. It is not publication in this work or verification of the latest corrections. - Referenced methods: Internal case-specific adaptation of the retained M03/M04/M08/M15/M19 principles on questions, families, measurement/analysis/uncertainty, and harms. This is not formal application of a methodology or clinical certification. - Related sources: ## Evidence and sources ### S01 Wilkinson et al. 1997. The response to treatment of subclinical thiamine deficiency in the elderly [Source](https://www.academia.edu/18660919/The_response_to_treatment_of_subclinical_thiamine_deficiency_in_the_elderly) Materials actually read: The designated retained summary was actually read. External/old separate original sources have not been read in the current work. Findings recorded in the summary: Full original text reproduced by a third-party host; primary publisher DOI/ScienceDirect access failed. Two-column text extraction has layout artifacts. Grip test, design and results prose distinguishable; no quantitative grip-change contrast in Table 3. · Although 10 mg/day for 3 months was compared with placebo, no quantitative handgrip treatment contrast, CI, or exact P value was reported. Nonsignificance was not treated as equivalence or no effect. · Denominator: 76 participants; 38 thiamine, 38 placebo; all completed · Role: The closest controlled trial, but excluded from target efficacy scoring because the population did not match objectively weak adults Record level: A retained summary within the historical extraction/access scope; not new verification of original clinical evidence. Independent replication: Distinguish report, bibliographic/safety, registration, and family roles; do not count 23 entries as 23 trials. | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Retained summary of bibliography, limited extraction, and historical access | Locally retained | Acquired | Summary read | Exact stored-manuscript location/value/SHA. Not the original bytes of a clinical full text. | | Original-article HTML reproduced by a 3rd-party host | Unverified (no external lookup in this work) | Access not attempted | Not read | Distinguish historical access level/success/failure from current non-attempted external access. The existence of a link is not a current reading record. | ### S02 Wilkinson 1997 bibliographic record [Source](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9322569/) Materials actually read: The designated retained summary was actually read. External/old separate original sources have not been read in the current work. Findings recorded in the summary: Direct page returned no readable lines; metadata also corroborated by original reproduction. Record level: A retained summary within the historical extraction/access scope; not new verification of original clinical evidence. Independent replication: Distinguish report, bibliographic/safety, registration, and family roles; do not count 23 entries as 23 trials. | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Retained summary of bibliography, limited extraction, and historical access | Locally retained | Acquired | Summary read | Exact stored-manuscript location/value/SHA. Not the original bytes of a clinical full text. | | PubMed bibliographic/indexed excerpt | Unverified (no external lookup in this work) | Access not attempted | Not read | Distinguish historical access level/success/failure from current non-attempted external access. The existence of a link is not a current reading record. | ### S03 Bager et al. 2021. Randomised clinical trial: high-dose oral thiamine versus placebo for chronic fatigue in patients with quiescent inflammatory bowel disease [Source](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/apt.16166) Materials actually read: The designated retained summary was actually read. External/old separate original sources have not been read in the current work. Findings recorded in the summary: The /full address redirected to /abs; encoded /full timed out. Grip text is an indexed excerpt, not full-text verification. Existing fatigue verdict 3086 is unchanged. · Although 600–1,800 mg/day was administered for 4 weeks per period, the population was not recruited for objective weakness, and a quantitative handgrip effect/CI could not be verified. · Denominator: 40 participants; handgrip analysis denominator unverified · Role: Excluded because of the fatigue population/endpoint mismatch Record level: A retained summary within the historical extraction/access scope; not new verification of original clinical evidence. Independent replication: Distinguish report, bibliographic/safety, registration, and family roles; do not count 23 entries as 23 trials. | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Retained summary of bibliography, limited extraction, and historical access | Locally retained | Acquired | Summary read | Exact stored-manuscript location/value/SHA. Not the original bytes of a clinical full text. | | Publisher abstract/indexed handgrip excerpt | Unverified (no external lookup in this work) | Access not attempted | Not read | Distinguish historical access level/success/failure from current non-attempted external access. The existence of a link is not a current reading record. | ### S04 Bager 2021 publisher-provided first-page preview [Source](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346485359_Randomised_clinical_trial_high-dose_oral_thiamine_versus_placebo_for_chronic_fatigue_in_patients_with_quiescent_inflammatory_bowel_disease) Materials actually read: The designated retained summary was actually read. External/old separate original sources have not been read in the current work. Findings recorded in the summary: Only first page and abstract/figure captions read; later citing papers on the same web page are not the original trial. Record level: A retained summary within the historical extraction/access scope; not new verification of original clinical evidence. Independent replication: Distinguish report, bibliographic/safety, registration, and family roles; do not count 23 entries as 23 trials. | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Retained summary of bibliography, limited extraction, and historical access | Locally retained | Acquired | Summary read | Exact stored-manuscript location/value/SHA. Not the original bytes of a clinical full text. | | ResearchGate first-page preview/abstract | Unverified (no external lookup in this work) | Access not attempted | Not read | Distinguish historical access level/success/failure from current non-attempted external access. The existence of a link is not a current reading record. | ### S05 Artiukhov et al. 2024. Pharmacological Doses of Thiamine Benefit Patients with the Charcot–Marie–Tooth Neuropathy by Changing Thiamine Diphosphate Levels and Affecting Regulation of Thiamine-Dependent Enzymes [Source](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S0006297924070010) Materials actually read: The designated retained summary was actually read. External/old separate original sources have not been read in the current work. Findings recorded in the summary: Main body subscription-restricted. A healthy metabolic comparison group is not a verified untreated longitudinal grip comparator. · Hydrochloride, sulbutiamine, benfotiamine, and other treatments were not pooled or repurposed as a causal between-group handgrip effect. · Denominator: 15 participants in the supplementary material (14 adults); 5 adults receiving hydrochloride, 2 participants verified in the long-term handgrip figure · Role: Excluded because of the uncontrolled design, mixed formulations, and age mismatch Record level: A retained summary within the historical extraction/access scope; not new verification of original clinical evidence. Independent replication: Distinguish report, bibliographic/safety, registration, and family roles; do not count 23 entries as 23 trials. | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Retained summary of bibliography, limited extraction, and historical access | Locally retained | Acquired | Summary read | Exact stored-manuscript location/value/SHA. Not the original bytes of a clinical full text. | | Publisher abstract/funding, ethics, and correction metadata | Unverified (no external lookup in this work) | Access not attempted | Not read | Distinguish historical access level/success/failure from current non-attempted external access. The existence of a link is not a current reading record. | ### S06 Artiukhov 2024 electronic supplementary materials [Source](https://media.springernature.com/original/springer-static/esm/art%3A10.1134%2FS0006297924070010/MediaObjects/10541_2024_2710_MOESM1_ESM.pdf) Materials actually read: The designated retained summary was actually read. External/old separate original sources have not been read in the current work. Findings recorded in the summary: All 3 pages inspected with PDF screenshots. Mixed ages, thiamine-HCl/derivative exposures and other-therapy rows retained separately. Figure S2 concerns biomarkers, not a grip treatment contrast. Record level: A retained summary within the historical extraction/access scope; not new verification of original clinical evidence. Independent replication: Distinguish report, bibliographic/safety, registration, and family roles; do not count 23 entries as 23 trials. | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Retained summary of bibliography, limited extraction, and historical access | Locally retained | Acquired | Summary read | Exact stored-manuscript location/value/SHA. Not the original bytes of a clinical full text. | | Electronic supplementary PDF, 3 pages | Unverified (no external lookup in this work) | Access not attempted | Not read | Distinguish historical access level/success/failure from current non-attempted external access. The existence of a link is not a current reading record. | ### S07 Artiukhov 2024 Russian-language report/figure captions [Source](https://cardiosomatics.ru/0320-9725/article/view/676549) Materials actually read: The designated retained summary was actually read. External/old separate original sources have not been read in the current work. Findings recorded in the summary: Same cohort/translation, not replication. Figure 1 describes patients 1 and 3 receiving thiamine-HCl and patient 2 sulbutiamine; main text restricted. Record level: A retained summary within the historical extraction/access scope; not new verification of original clinical evidence. Independent replication: Distinguish report, bibliographic/safety, registration, and family roles; do not count 23 entries as 23 trials. | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Retained summary of bibliography, limited extraction, and historical access | Locally retained | Acquired | Summary read | Exact stored-manuscript location/value/SHA. Not the original bytes of a clinical full text. | | Russian publisher abstract/figure descriptions | Unverified (no external lookup in this work) | Access not attempted | Not read | Distinguish historical access level/success/failure from current non-attempted external access. The existence of a link is not a current reading record. | ### S08 Erratum to Artiukhov et al. 2024 [Source](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S0006297924090116) Materials actually read: The designated retained summary was actually read. External/old separate original sources have not been read in the current work. Findings recorded in the summary: Formal erratum exists; full correction body inaccessible. Main original publisher separately states page-range correction from 1–22 to 1161–1182. Table-3 gray-shading detail was found only in a search excerpt and is not promoted to verified full-text fact. Record level: A retained summary within the historical extraction/access scope; not new verification of original clinical evidence. Independent replication: Distinguish report, bibliographic/safety, registration, and family roles; do not count 23 entries as 23 trials. | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Retained summary of bibliography, limited extraction, and historical access | Locally retained | Acquired | Summary read | Exact stored-manuscript location/value/SHA. Not the original bytes of a clinical full text. | | Publisher correction notice (full text unacquired) | Unverified (no external lookup in this work) | Access not attempted | Not read | Distinguish historical access level/success/failure from current non-attempted external access. The existence of a link is not a current reading record. | ### S09 Costantini et al. 2016. High-dose thiamine improves the symptoms of myotonic dystrophy type 1 [Source](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5090854/) Materials actually read: The designated retained summary was actually read. External/old separate original sources have not been read in the current work. Findings recorded in the summary: Two cases, intramuscular thiamine 100 mg twice weekly, not oral single-ingredient controlled dynamometer evidence. Record level: A retained summary within the historical extraction/access scope; not new verification of original clinical evidence. Independent replication: Distinguish report, bibliographic/safety, registration, and family roles; do not count 23 entries as 23 trials. | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Retained summary of bibliography, limited extraction, and historical access | Locally retained | Acquired | Summary read | Exact stored-manuscript location/value/SHA. Not the original bytes of a clinical full text. | | PMC original-article HTML | Unverified (no external lookup in this work) | Access not attempted | Not read | Distinguish historical access level/success/failure from current non-attempted external access. The existence of a link is not a current reading record. | ### S10 Smidt et al. 1991. Influence of Thiamin Supplementation on the Health and General Well-being of an Elderly Irish Population With Marginal Thiamin Deficiency [Source](https://academic.oup.com/geronj/article-abstract/46/1/M16/638741) Materials actually read: The designated retained summary was actually read. External/old separate original sources have not been read in the current work. Findings recorded in the summary: Eighty healthy elderly women; 10 mg/day, six-week double-blind treatment after four-week baseline. Low-strength requirement and isolated objective strength contrast not verified; no benefit borrowed from well-being outcomes. Record level: A retained summary within the historical extraction/access scope; not new verification of original clinical evidence. Independent replication: Distinguish report, bibliographic/safety, registration, and family roles; do not count 23 entries as 23 trials. | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Retained summary of bibliography, limited extraction, and historical access | Locally retained | Acquired | Summary read | Exact stored-manuscript location/value/SHA. Not the original bytes of a clinical full text. | | Publisher indexed abstract | Unverified (no external lookup in this work) | Access not attempted | Not read | Distinguish historical access level/success/failure from current non-attempted external access. The existence of a link is not a current reading record. | ### S11 Nishiyama et al. 1972. Effect of thiamine tetrahydrofurfuryl disulfide (TTFD) on physical fitness chiefly on muscle strength—double blind studies [Source](https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jspfsm1949/21/1/21_1_6/_article) Materials actually read: The designated retained summary was actually read. External/old separate original sources have not been read in the current work. Findings recorded in the summary: TTFD entity exclusion verified from original title. Full paper not extracted; no numerical result asserted. Record level: A retained summary within the historical extraction/access scope; not new verification of original clinical evidence. Independent replication: Distinguish report, bibliographic/safety, registration, and family roles; do not count 23 entries as 23 trials. | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Retained summary of bibliography, limited extraction, and historical access | Locally retained | Acquired | Summary read | Exact stored-manuscript location/value/SHA. Not the original bytes of a clinical full text. | | J-STAGE original-article landing page | Unverified (no external lookup in this work) | Access not attempted | Not read | Distinguish historical access level/success/failure from current non-attempted external access. The existence of a link is not a current reading record. | ### S12 Doyle et al. 1997. Allithiamine ingestion does not enhance isokinetic parameters of muscle performance [Source](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9063763/) Materials actually read: The designated retained summary was actually read. External/old separate original sources have not been read in the current work. Findings recorded in the summary: 15 healthy college students; oral allithiamine 1 g/day for 5 days, placebo crossover; Biodex System2. Null statistical findings do not establish equivalence and concern a derivative and a different population. · The nonsignificant (P>0.05) result for allithiamine 1 g/day for 5 days does not establish no effect or equivalence for ordinary thiamine, adults with low muscle strength, and handgrip. · Denominator: 15 participants · Role: Excluded because of the derivative, healthy participants, and different muscle-strength endpoint Record level: A retained summary within the historical extraction/access scope; not new verification of original clinical evidence. Independent replication: Distinguish report, bibliographic/safety, registration, and family roles; do not count 23 entries as 23 trials. | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Retained summary of bibliography, limited extraction, and historical access | Locally retained | Acquired | Summary read | Exact stored-manuscript location/value/SHA. Not the original bytes of a clinical full text. | | PubMed original-article abstract | Unverified (no external lookup in this work) | Access not attempted | Not read | Distinguish historical access level/success/failure from current non-attempted external access. The existence of a link is not a current reading record. | ### S13 Ohkoshi et al. 2006. Functional Limitations in Thiamine Deficiency Neuropathy: FIM Score Improvement With Treatment [Source](https://www.ovid.com/jnls/jcnmd/fulltext/10.1097/01.cnd.0000203643.84628.a1~functional-limitations-in-thiamine-deficiency-neuropathy-fim) Materials actually read: The designated retained summary was actually read. External/old separate original sources have not been read in the current work. Findings recorded in the summary: FIM functional limitation outcome, not verified isolated muscle-strength trial. Detailed methods inaccessible; do not infer oral formulation or comparator. Record level: A retained summary within the historical extraction/access scope; not new verification of original clinical evidence. Independent replication: Distinguish report, bibliographic/safety, registration, and family roles; do not count 23 entries as 23 trials. | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Retained summary of bibliography, limited extraction, and historical access | Locally retained | Acquired | Summary read | Exact stored-manuscript location/value/SHA. Not the original bytes of a clinical full text. | | Indexed abstract excerpt (full-text 402 failure) | Unverified (no external lookup in this work) | Access not attempted | Not read | Distinguish historical access level/success/failure from current non-attempted external access. The existence of a link is not a current reading record. | ### S14 NIH ODS. Thiamin—Health Professional Fact Sheet [Source](https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Thiamin-HealthProfessional/?uid=bd05fc9162499s16) Materials actually read: The designated retained summary was actually read. External/old separate original sources have not been read in the current work. Findings recorded in the summary: Canonical address first failed; indexed query-parameter URL yielded full text. Safety context, not efficacy trial evidence. Record level: A retained summary within the historical extraction/access scope; not new verification of original clinical evidence. Independent replication: Distinguish report, bibliographic/safety, registration, and family roles; do not count 23 entries as 23 trials. | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Retained summary of bibliography, limited extraction, and historical access | Locally retained | Acquired | Summary read | Exact stored-manuscript location/value/SHA. Not the original bytes of a clinical full text. | | NIH official HTML overview | Unverified (no external lookup in this work) | Access not attempted | Not read | Distinguish historical access level/success/failure from current non-attempted external access. The existence of a link is not a current reading record. | ### S15 Thiamine Hydrochloride 100 mg Tablets—SmPC [Source](https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/product/13528/smpc) Materials actually read: The designated retained summary was actually read. External/old separate original sources have not been read in the current work. Findings recorded in the summary: Product-specific oral hydrochloride; does not establish safety for all products or higher doses. Parenteral predominance of hypersensitivity reports explicitly retained. Record level: A retained summary within the historical extraction/access scope; not new verification of original clinical evidence. Independent replication: Distinguish report, bibliographic/safety, registration, and family roles; do not count 23 entries as 23 trials. | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Retained summary of bibliography, limited extraction, and historical access | Locally retained | Acquired | Summary read | Exact stored-manuscript location/value/SHA. Not the original bytes of a clinical full text. | | emc official product information | Unverified (no external lookup in this work) | Access not attempted | Not read | Distinguish historical access level/success/failure from current non-attempted external access. The existence of a link is not a current reading record. | ### S16 Institute of Medicine 1998. Dietary Reference Intakes, Chapter4: Thiamin [Source](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK114331/) Materials actually read: The designated retained summary was actually read. External/old separate original sources have not been read in the current work. Findings recorded in the summary: No UL because inadequate toxicity data, not proof of unlimited safety. Dialysis/malabsorption may alter requirements; no therapeutic high-dose ceiling derived. Record level: A retained summary within the historical extraction/access scope; not new verification of original clinical evidence. Independent replication: Distinguish report, bibliographic/safety, registration, and family roles; do not count 23 entries as 23 trials. | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Retained summary of bibliography, limited extraction, and historical access | Locally retained | Acquired | Summary read | Exact stored-manuscript location/value/SHA. Not the original bytes of a clinical full text. | | NCBI official dietary-intake HTML chapter | Unverified (no external lookup in this work) | Access not attempted | Not read | Distinguish historical access level/success/failure from current non-attempted external access. The existence of a link is not a current reading record. | ### S17 NICE CG32. Nutrition support for adults [Source](https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg32/chapter/recommendations) Materials actually read: The designated retained summary was actually read. External/old separate original sources have not been read in the current work. Findings recorded in the summary: Supervised thiamine within a multi-component nutrition/refeeding regimen; not isolated strength efficacy evidence. Direct main and alternate chapter URLs failed. Record level: A retained summary within the historical extraction/access scope; not new verification of original clinical evidence. Independent replication: Distinguish report, bibliographic/safety, registration, and family roles; do not count 23 entries as 23 trials. | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Retained summary of bibliography, limited extraction, and historical access | Locally retained | Acquired | Summary read | Exact stored-manuscript location/value/SHA. Not the original bytes of a clinical full text. | | NICE indexed recommendation excerpt (full-page access failed) | Unverified (no external lookup in this work) | Access not attempted | Not read | Distinguish historical access level/success/failure from current non-attempted external access. The existence of a link is not a current reading record. | ### S18 ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03634735 [Source](https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03634735) Materials actually read: The designated retained summary was actually read. External/old separate original sources have not been read in the current work. Findings recorded in the summary: Record identifier verified in original report; official page shell, web API internal error and native API DNS failure. Prospective timing not independently verified. Record level: A retained summary within the historical extraction/access scope; not new verification of original clinical evidence. Independent replication: Distinguish report, bibliographic/safety, registration, and family roles; do not count 23 entries as 23 trials. | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Retained summary of bibliography, limited extraction, and historical access | Locally retained | Acquired | Summary read | Exact stored-manuscript location/value/SHA. Not the original bytes of a clinical full text. | | ClinicalTrials.gov shell (record body/history unacquired) | Unverified (no external lookup in this work) | Access not attempted | Not read | Distinguish historical access level/success/failure from current non-attempted external access. The existence of a link is not a current reading record. | ### S19 Bager TARIF family later publications as supplied in prior snapshot3086 [Source](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s10020-023-00741-3) Materials actually read: The designated retained summary was actually read. External/old separate original sources have not been read in the current work. Findings recorded in the summary: Oral HCl form and same-TARIF metabolic analysis provenance reused solely to map new strength question. PMID34592862 maintenance follow-up also mapped here. No fatigue assessment regraded. User-supplied snapshot, not claimed newly verified original. Record level: A retained summary within the historical extraction/access scope; not new verification of original clinical evidence. Independent replication: Distinguish report, bibliographic/safety, registration, and family roles; do not count 23 entries as 23 trials. | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Retained summary of bibliography, limited extraction, and historical access | Locally retained | Acquired | Summary read | Exact stored-manuscript location/value/SHA. Not the original bytes of a clinical full text. | | Extraction of multiple follow-up reports from previously supplied retained summaries | Unverified (no external lookup in this work) | Access not attempted | Not read | S19/S21 are entries containing multiple reports/supplied materials; a single external URL is not guaranteed to be a direct full-text link to the same material. | ### S20 Bager et al. 2024. High-dose oral thiamine versus placebo for chronic fatigue in primary biliary cholangitis [Source](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0301354) Materials actually read: The designated retained summary was actually read. External/old separate original sources have not been read in the current work. Findings recorded in the summary: Different disease and fatigue endpoint; not counted as strength refutation or replication. No fatigue effect size imported. Record level: A retained summary within the historical extraction/access scope; not new verification of original clinical evidence. Independent replication: Distinguish report, bibliographic/safety, registration, and family roles; do not count 23 entries as 23 trials. | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Retained summary of bibliography, limited extraction, and historical access | Locally retained | Acquired | Summary read | Exact stored-manuscript location/value/SHA. Not the original bytes of a clinical full text. | | Indexed abstract excerpt from an original article | Unverified (no external lookup in this work) | Access not attempted | Not read | Distinguish historical access level/success/failure from current non-attempted external access. The existence of a link is not a current reading record. | ### S21 2026 B-vitamins/magnesium IBD trial [Source](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-026-49880-7) Materials actually read: The designated retained summary was actually read. External/old separate original sources have not been read in the current work. Findings recorded in the summary: B1/B6/B12+magnesium combination and fatigue question; ineligible for isolated B1 strength. No new regrading. Record level: A retained summary within the historical extraction/access scope; not new verification of original clinical evidence. Independent replication: Distinguish report, bibliographic/safety, registration, and family roles; do not count 23 entries as 23 trials. | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Retained summary of bibliography, limited extraction, and historical access | Locally retained | Acquired | Summary read | Exact stored-manuscript location/value/SHA. Not the original bytes of a clinical full text. | | Indexed title/previously supplied composition extraction | Unverified (no external lookup in this work) | Access not attempted | Not read | S19/S21 are entries containing multiple reports/supplied materials; a single external URL is not guaranteed to be a direct full-text link to the same material. | ### S22 Thiamine pharmacologic protocols review (evidence map only) [Source](https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/14/11/3787) Materials actually read: The designated retained summary was actually read. External/old separate original sources have not been read in the current work. Findings recorded in the summary: Not used for decisive numbers or scoring. Record level: A retained summary within the historical extraction/access scope; not new verification of original clinical evidence. Independent replication: Distinguish report, bibliographic/safety, registration, and family roles; do not count 23 entries as 23 trials. | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Retained summary of bibliography, limited extraction, and historical access | Locally retained | Acquired | Summary read | Exact stored-manuscript location/value/SHA. Not the original bytes of a clinical full text. | | Indexed review excerpt | Unverified (no external lookup in this work) | Access not attempted | Not read | Distinguish historical access level/success/failure from current non-attempted external access. The existence of a link is not a current reading record. | ### S23 Association of Micronutrients and Handgrip Strength in Korean Adults [Source](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9602344/) Materials actually read: The designated retained summary was actually read. External/old separate original sources have not been read in the current work. Findings recorded in the summary: Dietary micronutrient association, not an oral single-ingredient intervention; no dietary dose converted to supplement dose. Record level: A retained summary within the historical extraction/access scope; not new verification of original clinical evidence. Independent replication: Distinguish report, bibliographic/safety, registration, and family roles; do not count 23 entries as 23 trials. | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Retained summary of bibliography, limited extraction, and historical access | Locally retained | Acquired | Summary read | Exact stored-manuscript location/value/SHA. Not the original bytes of a clinical full text. | | Indexed excerpt from an original observational article | Unverified (no external lookup in this work) | Access not attempted | Not read | Distinguish historical access level/success/failure from current non-attempted external access. The existence of a link is not a current reading record. | ## Review criteria and methods These are Chamgap's own application conditions, informed by the relevant sections of official methodological guidance. They do not constitute official assessment-tool certification or a new efficacy score. - M03 [Cochrane Handbook 6.5 (2024), chapter updated 2023-08](https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/handbook/current/chapter-03) · §3.1, §3.2.1–3.2.3, MECIR C5/C7/C13 · Clearly record the question, eligibility criteria and reasons for changes, and distinguish variations in the intervention. · Records reuse of retained methodological principles/versions and the 5 actual HTML copies from 1585. This is not new reading of methodological full texts or an official execution/certification in the current work. - M04 [Cochrane Handbook 6.5.1 (2025), chapter updated 2025-03](https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/handbook/current/chapter-04) · §4.5, §4.6.1–4.6.3, MECIR C42 · Distinguish and link studies and reports, and do not omit a study solely because its outcomes are not reported. · Records reuse of retained methodological principles/versions and the 5 actual HTML copies from 1585. This is not new reading of methodological full texts or an official execution/certification in the current work. - M08 [Cochrane Handbook 6.5 (2024), chapter updated 2019-10](https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/handbook/current/chapter-08) · §8.1–8.2.3, Table 8.2.a · Hold the outcome and effect of interest fixed, then assess randomization, deviations, missing data, measurement and selective reporting. · Records reuse of retained methodological principles/versions and the 5 actual HTML copies from 1585. This is not new reading of methodological full texts or an official execution/certification in the current work. - M15 [Cochrane Handbook 6.5 (2024), chapter updated 2023-08](https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/handbook/current/chapter-15) · §15.2.4, §15.3.1–15.3.3 · Distinguish effect estimates, intervals, importance and applicability. Sample size alone does not determine precision. · Records reuse of retained methodological principles/versions and the 5 actual HTML copies from 1585. This is not new reading of methodological full texts or an official execution/certification in the current work. - M19 [Cochrane Handbook 6.5 (2024), chapter updated 2019-10](https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/handbook/current/chapter-19) · §19.1.2, §19.2.1–19.2.4 · Questions about harms may require designs, populations and follow-up different from efficacy questions. Case reports do not establish incidence. · Records reuse of retained methodological principles/versions and the 5 actual HTML copies from 1585. This is not new reading of methodological full texts or an official execution/certification in the current work. ## What the statuses mean - Partly verified: Some retained information exists, but gaps remain in eligible populations/exposures, measurements/denominators/estimates, original-source access, and related details. - Unverified: The necessary information/conditions cannot be established within the current verification scope. - Review incomplete: Original-material comparison/search was not performed within the permitted scope. - Not reported: A scope-limited status indicating that the item was not stated in the particular material/section read. - Inaccessible: Used only for materials for which access was actually attempted and failed. Not assigned to clinical materials in the current work. - Insufficient eligible evidence: Used only when, after reviewing related studies within a defined scope, evidence is insufficient to answer the specified question. Not applied across all entries in this work. - Not applicable: Specific non-applicability: separate extension studies are not imposed on the current narrow handgrip question. Not a substitute for unverified actual exposure/population/outcomes. - Conflicting information: Used when incompatible information has been compared for the same question, time point, and analysis. Not assigned merely because numbers differ between reviews. - Met: Verification of the stated preservation, boundary/distinction, or linkage conditions. Not certification of clinical efficacy, external full-text reading, or individual safety. ## Change history 2026-11-06 · Public page/materials 1.0. Public-facing display and data were prepared from the existing 44 items. No new clinical search, verification-status change, or scoring was performed. ## Material-specific source addresses - S01-M1 · Retained summary of bibliography, limited extraction, and historical access: No external link · retained summary - [S01-M2 · Original-article HTML reproduced by a 3rd-party host](https://www.academia.edu/18660919/The_response_to_treatment_of_subclinical_thiamine_deficiency_in_the_elderly) - S02-M1 · Retained summary of bibliography, limited extraction, and historical access: No external link · retained summary - [S02-M2 · PubMed bibliographic/indexed excerpt](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9322569/) - S03-M1 · Retained summary of bibliography, limited extraction, and historical access: No external link · retained summary - [S03-M2 · Publisher abstract/indexed handgrip excerpt](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/apt.16166) - S04-M1 · Retained summary of bibliography, limited extraction, and historical access: No external link · retained summary - [S04-M2 · ResearchGate first-page preview/abstract](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346485359_Randomised_clinical_trial_high-dose_oral_thiamine_versus_placebo_for_chronic_fatigue_in_patients_with_quiescent_inflammatory_bowel_disease) - S05-M1 · Retained summary of bibliography, limited extraction, and historical access: No external link · retained summary - [S05-M2 · Publisher abstract/funding, ethics, and correction metadata](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S0006297924070010) - S06-M1 · Retained summary of bibliography, limited extraction, and historical access: No external link · retained summary - [S06-M2 · Electronic supplementary PDF, 3 pages](https://media.springernature.com/original/springer-static/esm/art%3A10.1134%2FS0006297924070010/MediaObjects/10541_2024_2710_MOESM1_ESM.pdf) - S07-M1 · Retained summary of bibliography, limited extraction, and historical access: No external link · retained summary - [S07-M2 · Russian publisher abstract/figure descriptions](https://cardiosomatics.ru/0320-9725/article/view/676549) - S08-M1 · Retained summary of bibliography, limited extraction, and historical access: No external link · retained summary - [S08-M2 · Publisher correction notice (full text unacquired)](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S0006297924090116) - S09-M1 · Retained summary of bibliography, limited extraction, and historical access: No external link · retained summary - [S09-M2 · PMC original-article HTML](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5090854/) - S10-M1 · Retained summary of bibliography, limited extraction, and historical access: No external link · retained summary - [S10-M2 · Publisher indexed abstract](https://academic.oup.com/geronj/article-abstract/46/1/M16/638741) - S11-M1 · Retained summary of bibliography, limited extraction, and historical access: No external link · retained summary - [S11-M2 · J-STAGE original-article landing page](https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jspfsm1949/21/1/21_1_6/_article) - S12-M1 · Retained summary of bibliography, limited extraction, and historical access: No external link · retained summary - [S12-M2 · PubMed original-article abstract](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9063763/) - S13-M1 · Retained summary of bibliography, limited extraction, and historical access: No external link · retained summary - [S13-M2 · Indexed abstract excerpt (full-text 402 failure)](https://www.ovid.com/jnls/jcnmd/fulltext/10.1097/01.cnd.0000203643.84628.a1~functional-limitations-in-thiamine-deficiency-neuropathy-fim) - S14-M1 · Retained summary of bibliography, limited extraction, and historical access: No external link · retained summary - [S14-M2 · NIH official HTML overview](https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Thiamin-HealthProfessional/?uid=bd05fc9162499s16) - S15-M1 · Retained summary of bibliography, limited extraction, and historical access: No external link · retained summary - [S15-M2 · emc official product information](https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/product/13528/smpc) - S16-M1 · Retained summary of bibliography, limited extraction, and historical access: No external link · retained summary - [S16-M2 · NCBI official dietary-intake HTML chapter](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK114331/) - S17-M1 · Retained summary of bibliography, limited extraction, and historical access: No external link · retained summary - [S17-M2 · NICE indexed recommendation excerpt (full-page access failed)](https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg32/chapter/recommendations) - S18-M1 · Retained summary of bibliography, limited extraction, and historical access: No external link · retained summary - [S18-M2 · ClinicalTrials.gov shell (record body/history unacquired)](https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03634735) - S19-M1 · Retained summary of bibliography, limited extraction, and historical access: No external link · retained summary - S19-M2 · Extraction of multiple follow-up reports from previously supplied retained summaries: Material URL unverified; external material unread. - S20-M1 · Retained summary of bibliography, limited extraction, and historical access: No external link · retained summary - [S20-M2 · Indexed abstract excerpt from an original article](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0301354) - S21-M1 · Retained summary of bibliography, limited extraction, and historical access: No external link · retained summary - S21-M2 · Indexed title/previously supplied composition extraction: Material URL unverified; external material unread. - S22-M1 · Retained summary of bibliography, limited extraction, and historical access: No external link · retained summary - [S22-M2 · Indexed review excerpt](https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/14/11/3787) - S23-M1 · Retained summary of bibliography, limited extraction, and historical access: No external link · retained summary - [S23-M2 · Indexed excerpt from an original observational article](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9602344/)