# Single-ingredient oral ordinary thiamine (vitamin B1) × Endurance time-trial completion time in trained adults Verdict 3119 · Evidence Check Stored-material review date: 2026-10-05 Original evidence date: 2026-09-16 Review-criteria version: v3119-ORAL-THIAMINE-TRAINED-TT-1.1 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: Trained adults. The actual eligible sport, training qualifications, inclusion/exclusion criteria and baseline thiamine status are unverified. - Ingredient, formulation and route: Single-ingredient oral ordinary thiamine. The free base, hydrochloride and mononitrate remain separate, and the actual eligible salt, product/batch/source are unverified. Equivalence to derivatives/combinations is not assumed. - Dose: The eligible dose, frequency, meal timing/loading and adherence are unverified. Derivative/combination doses are not converted or transferred into personal dosing instructions. - Comparator: Placebo, no added thiamine, or a control with all other treatments matched. The actual eligible composition and evidence of matching for concomitant treatments/training/diet are unverified. - Measured outcome: Completion time for one fixed-distance or fixed-work endurance time trial. Shorter is better. The actual eligible sport, protocol, distance/work, unit and principal time point are unverified. - Duration: The eligible administration duration, actual exposure and principal time point are unverified. Each schedule in an indirect trial is attributed only to its respective product/endpoint. - Questions outside this scope: Allithiamin/TTFD/fursultiamine/TPP, pantothenic-acid-related/multicomponent combinations, non-athletes/other cohorts, exhaustion/fixed-duration biochemistry/RPE, fatigue, VO2max/lactate, strength/gait, deficiency treatment, optimal dose/long-term outcomes, and judgments about personal safety/anti-doping compliance are separate questions. ## Checklist items ### N01 · What is the performance-efficacy question in this table? Verification status: Met Reading scope: Summary read: the actual locations/values in the specified retained stored summaries were read. External material types were not accessed, acquired or read in this review; access was not attempted. - Current findings: The original claim is “Endurance time-trial completion time in trained adults.” It asks about fixed-distance or fixed-work completion time with single-ingredient oral ordinary thiamine versus a matched control. The subclaim array is empty, and other endpoints, derivatives and combinations are separated as related materials. - Why unverified: Meets the criterion of recording the independent question's identity and boundaries for extensions. This does not mean that a performance effect or safety has been verified. - Reason for missing information: The actual sport, product, protocol and principal time point of an eligible trial - Required materials and conditions: The identity of the current claim and the boundaries of the population, single-ingredient oral exposure, matched control and completion time - Materials to obtain first: The identity of the current claim and the boundaries of the population, single-ingredient oral exposure, matched control and completion time - Further research: Compare the original claim with the actual population, intervention, control and endpoint, and record the inclusion/exclusion boundaries. - Conditions for verification: Preserve the exact /ko/effect and link it to one question about trained adults, single-ingredient oral ordinary thiamine and fixed-distance/work completion time. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid combining the entire B1 family or all exercise performance into one verified effect. - Application exceptions: The subclaim array is empty. Reports on related derivatives, combinations and other endpoints are not split into new primary tables of direct evidence. - Remaining uncertainty: The materials/verification still needed are as follows: The actual sport, product, protocol and principal time point of an eligible trial. This limitation is confined to the current inputs and the historical verification scope; it does not mean absence of studies, an effect of 0, established safety or an external access failure in this review. - Referenced methods: C01: Question-clarification principles in M03 §3.1, §3.2.1–3.2.4; detailed separation rules are locally designed / C04: M03 §3.2.1; detailed population criteria are locally designed / C05: M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction labeling and test adaptations are locally designed / C06: M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are locally designed. Reason for application in this case: Needed to avoid combining the entire B1 family or all exercise performance into one verified effect. This is not new reading of complete method texts, execution of official RoB 2/GRADE/causality tools, or certification of minimum clinical criteria. - Related sources: ### N02 · What is the verification scope of 0 directly eligible families? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read: the actual locations/values in the specified retained stored summaries were read. External material types were not accessed, acquired or read in this review; access was not attempted. - Current findings: Within the original verification scope through 2026-09-16, the number of directly eligible controlled efficacy trial families is recorded as 0. Related human research exists, and absence of studies has not been proven. This 0 is not transferred to an effect of 0 or R0. - Why unverified: The original scope and reasons for excluding candidates are retained, but the separate original search logs and the entire current literature were not newly cross-checked. - Reason for missing information: The original search logs and the actual identity and selection materials for additional eligible candidates - Required materials and conditions: The original search/access scope, candidate-specific grounds for inclusion/exclusion, and whether eligible results exist - Materials to obtain first: The original search/access scope, candidate-specific grounds for inclusion/exclusion, and whether eligible results exist - Further research: In an authorized update, recheck question-specific selection criteria, candidate-specific reasons for inclusion/exclusion and the search scope. - Conditions for verification: Preserve 0 directly eligible families together with any_human_study=true and absence_proven=false. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid turning an unverified direct comparison into worldwide absence of studies, an effect of 0 or absence of human research. - Application exceptions: The existence of related human research differs from the existence of a trial eligible for the selected question about thiamine alone. - Remaining uncertainty: The materials/verification still needed are as follows: The original search logs and the actual identity and selection materials for additional eligible candidates. This limitation is confined to the current inputs and the historical verification scope; it does not mean absence of studies, an effect of 0, established safety or an external access failure in this review. - Referenced methods: C02: Distinction between studies and reports in M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2; cohort/outcome linkage is a local application / C08: M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; separation of statuses is locally designed / C09: M04 §4.5, §4.6.3; limits of the current material conversion follow the user-defined scope and local design / E07: M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2, M15 §15.3.1; local application. Reason for application in this case: Needed to avoid turning an unverified direct comparison into worldwide absence of studies, an effect of 0 or absence of human research. This is not new reading of complete method texts, execution of official RoB 2/GRADE/causality tools, or certification of minimum clinical criteria. - Related sources: S01, S02, S03, S04, S05, S06 ### N03 · Which salts/products qualify as single-ingredient ordinary thiamine? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Summary read: the actual locations/values in the specified retained stored summaries were read. External material types were not accessed, acquired or read in this review; access was not attempted. - Current findings: The selected exposure is single-ingredient oral ordinary thiamine. The free base, hydrochloride and mononitrate remain separate, and the actual eligible salt, product and manufacturing source are unverified. Derivatives/combinations in related reports are not equated with ordinary thiamine alone. - Why unverified: The actual salt/product identity in an eligible trial has not been obtained. Oral use and a single ingredient are boundaries of the question, not a verified trial product. - Reason for missing information: Records of the eligible product's molecule/salt, ingredients, batch and supply - Required materials and conditions: Verification of the free base/hydrochloride/mononitrate identity, product, batch, manufacturing source and single-ingredient composition in an eligible trial - Materials to obtain first: Verification of the free base/hydrochloride/mononitrate identity, product, batch, manufacturing source and single-ingredient composition in an eligible trial - Further research: Compare the product's ingredient list with the trial's actual formulation and supply/batch records to establish the exposure to include. - Conditions for verification: Distinguish single-ingredient oral ordinary thiamine in the original question from the unverified actual salt/product, and do not create converted derivative doses. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid using the shared B1 label as evidence of molecular/product equivalence or an effect of the ingredient alone. - Application exceptions: Allithiamin, TTFD/fursultiamine, TPP and combinations do not substitute for ordinary thiamine alone. The free base/hydrochloride/mononitrate are not automatically pooled either. - Remaining uncertainty: The materials/verification still needed are as follows: Records of the eligible product's molecule/salt, ingredients, batch and supply. This limitation is confined to the current inputs and the historical verification scope; it does not mean absence of studies, an effect of 0, established safety or an external access failure in this review. - Referenced methods: C05: M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction labeling and test adaptations are locally designed / E02: M03 §3.2.3, M08 §8.2.2–8.2.3; local application. Reason for application in this case: Needed to avoid using the shared B1 label as evidence of molecular/product equivalence or an effect of the ingredient alone. This is not new reading of complete method texts, execution of official RoB 2/GRADE/causality tools, or certification of minimum clinical criteria. - Related sources: S01, S02, S03, S04, S05, S06 ### N04 · Adults from which sport and with which training criteria are targeted? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Summary read: the actual locations/values in the specified retained stored summaries were read. External material types were not accessed, acquired or read in this review; access was not attempted. - Current findings: The sport and training qualification criteria of an eligible trial are unverified. S01 is recorded as highly trained cyclists, S02 as having unverified training qualifications, S04 as a female group with athletic experience, and S05 as non-athletes. These populations are not pooled as the same eligible group. - Why unverified: Some descriptions of related populations exist, but sport, training criteria and selection materials eligible for the selected question are absent. - Reason for missing information: Eligible recruitment/exclusion, baseline characteristic and training qualification materials - Required materials and conditions: Sport, training qualifications, competition level, training volume/years, age/sex and inclusion/exclusion criteria in an eligible trial - Materials to obtain first: Sport, training qualifications, competition level, training volume/years, age/sex and inclusion/exclusion criteria in an eligible trial - Further research: Compare recruitment, baseline characteristic tables and training qualifications, and record differences in applicability across sports. - Conditions for verification: Separate the trained adults specified in the question, the actual population of each trial, and the unverified eligible sport/qualifications. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid transferring data from highly trained cyclists or non-athletes to all trained adults. - Application exceptions: Mean VO2max is not a training eligibility threshold. The female group with physical-education/Taekwondo experience is not relabeled as untrained. - Remaining uncertainty: The materials/verification still needed are as follows: Eligible recruitment/exclusion, baseline characteristic and training qualification materials. This limitation is confined to the current inputs and the historical verification scope; it does not mean absence of studies, an effect of 0, established safety or an external access failure in this review. - Referenced methods: C04: M03 §3.2.1; detailed population criteria are locally designed / E08: M03 §3.2.1–3.2.4; details of dose, persistence and effect modification are locally designed. Reason for application in this case: Needed to avoid transferring data from highly trained cyclists or non-athletes to all trained adults. This is not new reading of complete method texts, execution of official RoB 2/GRADE/causality tools, or certification of minimum clinical criteria. - Related sources: S01, S02, S04, S05 ### N05 · Have deficiency correction and performance in trained adults with different nutritional status been distinguished? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Summary read: the actual locations/values in the specified retained stored summaries were read. External material types were not accessed, acquired or read in this review; access was not attempted. - Current findings: Eligible baseline thiamine status is unverified. S03 uses the authors' classification based on blood B1 of 40 ng/mL, with 8 participants per group; this is not universal diagnostic confirmation of deficiency. S05's dietary management is likewise not relabeled as a result verifying adequate baseline B1 status. - Why unverified: No materials establish baseline testing, nutritional status or deficiency status in the selected population. - Reason for missing information: Eligible baseline assay/value, diet, concomitant supplementation and deficiency selection materials - Required materials and conditions: Baseline thiamine markers/assays, thresholds, diet/energy availability, concomitant supplementation and deficiency-related selection - Materials to obtain first: Baseline thiamine markers/assays, thresholds, diet/energy availability, concomitant supplementation and deficiency-related selection - Further research: Compare baseline testing and diet/concomitant supplementation records with the presence of prespecified stratification or interaction analyses. - Conditions for verification: Preserve unverified eligible baseline status and the limitations of markers/diet in related trials, and separate deficiency treatment from the performance question. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid extending deficiency improvement or blood-level categorization to additional performance benefits in nutritionally sufficient athletes. - Application exceptions: S03's blood-level division at 40 ng/mL is the authors' classification, not a universal diagnostic criterion for deficiency. A request to follow a normal diet does not verify adequate baseline B1. - Remaining uncertainty: The materials/verification still needed are as follows: Eligible baseline assay/value, diet, concomitant supplementation and deficiency selection materials. This limitation is confined to the current inputs and the historical verification scope; it does not mean absence of studies, an effect of 0, established safety or an external access failure in this review. - Referenced methods: C04: M03 §3.2.1; detailed population criteria are locally designed / C05: M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction labeling and test adaptations are locally designed / E02: M03 §3.2.3, M08 §8.2.2–8.2.3; local application / E08: M03 §3.2.1–3.2.4; details of dose, persistence and effect modification are locally designed. Reason for application in this case: Needed to avoid extending deficiency improvement or blood-level categorization to additional performance benefits in nutritionally sufficient athletes. This is not new reading of complete method texts, execution of official RoB 2/GRADE/causality tools, or certification of minimum clinical criteria. - Related sources: S03, S05 ### N06 · What are the actual dose and administration frequency of an eligible single-ingredient product? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Summary read: the actual locations/values in the specified retained stored summaries were read. External material types were not accessed, acquired or read in this review; access was not attempted. - Current findings: The dose and administration frequency of eligible single-ingredient ordinary thiamine are unverified. Derivative amounts in g or mg/kg and the B1 content of combination tablets are not converted into equivalent doses, optimal doses or personal doses of thiamine alone. - Why unverified: Actual dose, frequency and adherence records for the selected exposure are absent, and doses of related formulations cannot substitute for them. - Reason for missing information: Actual administration, active-amount, frequency and adherence records for the eligible product - Required materials and conditions: Actual salt/active amount, dose per administration (1 time), total daily dose, frequency, meal timing/loading, adherence and concomitant exposure - Materials to obtain first: Actual salt/active amount, dose per administration (1 time), total daily dose, frequency, meal timing/loading, adherence and concomitant exposure - Further research: Compare actual administration with ingredient/active-amount records, and analyze any dose comparison as a separate prespecified question. - Conditions for verification: Retain null for eligible dose/frequency, and link doses and ambiguities in related reports to separate rows. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid transferring a derivative or combination dose to a study dose or personal recommended dose for ordinary thiamine alone. - Application exceptions: Derivative mass is not converted to a thiamine-equivalent dose. Reported amounts of other products are attributed only to those products. - Remaining uncertainty: The materials/verification still needed are as follows: Actual administration, active-amount, frequency and adherence records for the eligible product. This limitation is confined to the current inputs and the historical verification scope; it does not mean absence of studies, an effect of 0, established safety or an external access failure in this review. - Referenced methods: C05: M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction labeling and test adaptations are locally designed / E02: M03 §3.2.3, M08 §8.2.2–8.2.3; local application / E08: M03 §3.2.1–3.2.4; details of dose, persistence and effect modification are locally designed. Reason for application in this case: Needed to avoid transferring a derivative or combination dose to a study dose or personal recommended dose for ordinary thiamine alone. This is not new reading of complete method texts, execution of official RoB 2/GRADE/causality tools, or certification of minimum clinical criteria. - Related sources: S01, S02, S04, S05, S06 ### N07 · Which completion time after which supplementation duration is being compared? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Summary read: the actual locations/values in the specified retained stored summaries were read. External material types were not accessed, acquired or read in this review; access was not attempted. - Current findings: The supplementation duration and principal time-trial time point for eligible ordinary thiamine are unverified. Short-term or 4-week administration in related trials is not pooled as the same time point or extended to persistence after discontinuation or an optimal duration. - Why unverified: The actual supplementation duration and originally planned principal time point for the selected question are absent. - Reason for missing information: Eligible administration schedule, principal time point, discontinuation/follow-up and planning materials - Required materials and conditions: Eligible supplementation duration, actual exposure, principal measurement time point, discontinuation/follow-up and reasons for selecting the duration - Materials to obtain first: Eligible supplementation duration, actual exposure, principal measurement time point, discontinuation/follow-up and reasons for selecting the duration - Further research: Compare the administration schedule, measurement time points and planned principal time point, and design additional follow-up as a separate question about persistence. - Conditions for verification: Distinguish null eligible duration/principal time point from each duration/time point in related reports. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid pooling results after 3/4/7 days or 4 weeks with different formulations as effects at the same time point or sustained effects. - Application exceptions: Long-term studies are not unconditionally imposed as a requirement for a short completion-time question; long-term persistence of effects is a separate question. - Remaining uncertainty: The materials/verification still needed are as follows: Eligible administration schedule, principal time point, discontinuation/follow-up and planning materials. This limitation is confined to the current inputs and the historical verification scope; it does not mean absence of studies, an effect of 0, established safety or an external access failure in this review. - Referenced methods: C05: M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction labeling and test adaptations are locally designed / C06: M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are locally designed / E08: M03 §3.2.1–3.2.4; details of dose, persistence and effect modification are locally designed. Reason for application in this case: Needed to avoid pooling results after 3/4/7 days or 4 weeks with different formulations as effects at the same time point or sustained effects. This is not new reading of complete method texts, execution of official RoB 2/GRADE/causality tools, or certification of minimum clinical criteria. - Related sources: S01, S02, S03, S04, S05 ### N08 · Are other treatments matched, with only added thiamine differing? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Summary read: the actual locations/values in the specified retained stored summaries were read. External material types were not accessed, acquired or read in this review; access was not attempted. - Current findings: The question concerns placebo, no added thiamine, or a control with other treatments matched. The actual eligible control and group-specific diet, training and adherence are unverified. S04's separate training period or the control for S05's combination tablet is not relabeled as a comparison of added thiamine alone. - Why unverified: There are no actual control, concomitant-treatment or period-specific change materials that distinguish the contribution of an eligible single ingredient. - Reason for missing information: Eligible control composition, concomitant-treatment, diet/training and adherence/rescue-treatment records - Required materials and conditions: Eligible control ingredients, diet/hydration/caffeine, training, concomitant supplementation, adherence/rescue treatment and changes by group/period - Materials to obtain first: Eligible control ingredients, diet/hydration/caffeine, training, concomitant supplementation, adherence/rescue treatment and changes by group/period - Further research: Compare control composition, diet/training by period, concomitant exposure and adherence records to examine the contribution of the single ingredient. - Conditions for verification: Separate the matched control specified in the question from the unverified actual eligible control/concomitant treatments. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid attributing differences in diet, training or combined ingredients to an effect of thiamine alone. - Application exceptions: Do not require all treatment changes to be identical; distinguish the actual effect of interest and how changes are handled. A placebo label alone does not verify matching. - Remaining uncertainty: The materials/verification still needed are as follows: Eligible control composition, concomitant-treatment, diet/training and adherence/rescue-treatment records. This limitation is confined to the current inputs and the historical verification scope; it does not mean absence of studies, an effect of 0, established safety or an external access failure in this review. - Referenced methods: C05: M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction labeling and test adaptations are locally designed / E02: M03 §3.2.3, M08 §8.2.2–8.2.3; local application. Reason for application in this case: Needed to avoid attributing differences in diet, training or combined ingredients to an effect of thiamine alone. This is not new reading of complete method texts, execution of official RoB 2/GRADE/causality tools, or certification of minimum clinical criteria. - Related sources: S01, S02, S04, S05 ### N09 · Have fixed-distance/work completion time and time to exhaustion been distinguished? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read: the actual locations/values in the specified retained stored summaries were read. External material types were not accessed, acquired or read in this review; access was not attempted. - Current findings: The selected endpoint is the time to complete one fixed distance or fixed amount of work, and shorter is better. The actual eligible sport, distance/work and unit are unverified. Time to exhaustion, for which longer is better, is kept separate, as are fixed-duration biochemistry/RPE, subjective fatigue and VO2max/lactate. - Why unverified: The definition and direction of the selected endpoint are specified, but the actual protocol and measurement unit of an eligible trial are absent. - Reason for missing information: Eligible stopping criteria, distance/work, unit, principal time point and prespecified endpoint definition - Required materials and conditions: Eligible sport, fixed distance/work, principal completion time, unit, direction and prespecified endpoint definition - Materials to obtain first: Eligible sport, fixed distance/work, principal completion time, unit, direction and prespecified endpoint definition - Further research: Compare distance/work, stopping criteria, units and the prespecified endpoint list, and link only comparable completion times. - Conditions for verification: Retain lower_is_better=true for the selected endpoint and the unverified actual eligible protocol/unit, and separate outcomes with a different direction. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid transferring completion time, for which shorter is better, and time to exhaustion, for which longer is better, into the same outcome. - Application exceptions: Biochemistry/RPE during fixed 60-minute exercise, VO2max, lactate and subjective fatigue are not substitutes for completion time. - Remaining uncertainty: The materials/verification still needed are as follows: Eligible stopping criteria, distance/work, unit, principal time point and prespecified endpoint definition. This limitation is confined to the current inputs and the historical verification scope; it does not mean absence of studies, an effect of 0, established safety or an external access failure in this review. - Referenced methods: C06: M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are locally designed / E03: M08 Table 8.2.a, M03 §3.2.4; local application / E09: M03 §3.2.4; locally defined boundaries for extensions. Reason for application in this case: Needed to avoid transferring completion time, for which shorter is better, and time to exhaustion, for which longer is better, into the same outcome. This is not new reading of complete method texts, execution of official RoB 2/GRADE/causality tools, or certification of minimum clinical criteria. - Related sources: S01, S02, S04, S05, S06 ### N10 · Were measurement conditions and learning effects from repeated testing controlled? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Summary read: the actual locations/values in the specified retained stored summaries were read. External material types were not accessed, acquired or read in this review; access was not attempted. - Current findings: The measurement SOP for an eligible time trial is unverified. In related S01/S02 reports, many implementation details, including familiarization, pacing, equipment calibration/environment, are also unverified. Matched measurement conditions are not assumed merely because time records are objective. - Why unverified: There are no materials for cross-checking actual implementation, environment/calibration or learning effects for the selected endpoint. - Reason for missing information: Eligible measurement SOP and period-specific implementation/environment and familiarization records - Required materials and conditions: Familiarization, warm-up, pacing, resistance/gradient, environment, equipment calibration, encouragement, time of day, hydration/feeding/caffeine - Materials to obtain first: Familiarization, warm-up, pacing, resistance/gradient, environment, equipment calibration, encouragement, time of day, hydration/feeding/caffeine - Further research: Compare the measurement SOP with actual equipment/environment, familiarization and period-specific implementation records. - Conditions for verification: Link unverified eligible implementation information and limitations of related reports to their locations. - Why this condition is needed: Needed because even objective records in seconds can be affected by differences in measurement implementation and learning effects across periods. - Application exceptions: Do not automatically judge objective records to be unbiased or fill unverified measurement procedures in as properly implemented. - Remaining uncertainty: The materials/verification still needed are as follows: Eligible measurement SOP and period-specific implementation/environment and familiarization records. This limitation is confined to the current inputs and the historical verification scope; it does not mean absence of studies, an effect of 0, established safety or an external access failure in this review. - Referenced methods: C06: M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are locally designed / E03: M08 Table 8.2.a, M03 §3.2.4; local application. Reason for application in this case: Needed because even objective records in seconds can be affected by differences in measurement implementation and learning effects across periods. This is not new reading of complete method texts, execution of official RoB 2/GRADE/causality tools, or certification of minimum clinical criteria. - Related sources: S01, S02, S05 ### N11 · Have actual allocation and concealment in the eligible comparison been verified? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Summary read: the actual locations/values in the specified retained stored summaries were read. External material types were not accessed, acquired or read in this review; access was not attempted. - Current findings: No directly eligible comparison has been selected, so its allocation, concealment and baseline balance are unverified. Descriptions of randomized crossover/sequences in S01/S02/S05 are records for their respective ineligible products and are not inherited as verification of allocation in a trial of thiamine alone. - Why unverified: An eligible trial and actual allocation/concealment materials are absent, so no new bias judgment can be made. - Reason for missing information: Eligible design, sequence generation/concealment, and baseline/sequence characteristic materials - Required materials and conditions: Parallel/crossover design, random sequence, allocation concealment and baseline/sequence balance in the selected comparison - Materials to obtain first: Parallel/crossover design, random sequence, allocation concealment and baseline/sequence balance in the selected comparison - Further research: Compare the eligible protocol, sequence generation/concealment, and baseline and sequence-specific characteristics. - Conditions for verification: Distinguish the absence of a selected eligible trial from unverified actual allocation/concealment, and assign no new RoB grade. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid inheriting a related trial's randomized label as verification of allocation for causal inference in an as-yet-unselected eligible trial. - Application exceptions: Preserve the designs of related ineligible trials, but do not score bias in the effect of an eligible single-ingredient product on those designs alone. - Remaining uncertainty: The materials/verification still needed are as follows: Eligible design, sequence generation/concealment, and baseline/sequence characteristic materials. This limitation is confined to the current inputs and the historical verification scope; it does not mean absence of studies, an effect of 0, established safety or an external access failure in this review. - Referenced methods: E01: M08 §8.1–8.2.3; local application / C04: M03 §3.2.1; detailed population criteria are locally designed. Reason for application in this case: Needed to avoid inheriting a related trial's randomized label as verification of allocation for causal inference in an as-yet-unselected eligible trial. This is not new reading of complete method texts, execution of official RoB 2/GRADE/causality tools, or certification of minimum clinical criteria. - Related sources: S01, S02, S05 ### N12 · Have the actual blinding procedures and their success been verified? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Summary read: the actual locations/values in the specified retained stored summaries were read. External material types were not accessed, acquired or read in this review; access was not attempted. - Current findings: Blinding implementation for an eligible single-ingredient product is unverified. S05 records a placebo of the same color/size and manufacturer assistance with blinding, but no test of its success is verified. This description is not transferred into verification of blinding in a trial of thiamine alone. - Why unverified: Related descriptions exist, but there are no blinding materials for the selected eligible comparison. - Reason for missing information: Eligible placebo/blinding implementation, unblinding and assessor materials - Required materials and conditions: Participant/assessor blinding, placebo matching, actual unblinding and assessment of blinding - Materials to obtain first: Participant/assessor blinding, placebo matching, actual unblinding and assessment of blinding - Further research: Compare placebo composition, blinding implementation/unblinding, assessor roles and verified assessments. - Conditions for verification: Separate unverified eligible blinding from the levels of verification/non-verification in related trials. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid turning a double-blind label into actual successful blinding or the absence of differences in encouragement/assessment. - Application exceptions: Inability to blind is not automatically judged a failure. S05's manufacturer assistance with placebo/blinding is recorded alongside its separate funding/product roles. - Remaining uncertainty: The materials/verification still needed are as follows: Eligible placebo/blinding implementation, unblinding and assessor materials. This limitation is confined to the current inputs and the historical verification scope; it does not mean absence of studies, an effect of 0, established safety or an external access failure in this review. - Referenced methods: E01: M08 §8.1–8.2.3; local application / E03: M08 Table 8.2.a, M03 §3.2.4; local application. Reason for application in this case: Needed to avoid turning a double-blind label into actual successful blinding or the absence of differences in encouragement/assessment. This is not new reading of complete method texts, execution of official RoB 2/GRADE/causality tools, or certification of minimum clinical criteria. - Related sources: S01, S02, S05 ### N13 · Who was allocated, analyzed, completed or dropped out? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Summary read: the actual locations/values in the specified retained stored summaries were read. External material types were not accessed, acquired or read in this review; access was not attempted. - Current findings: Eligible allocated, analyzed and completed counts are all null. S01's 6 and S02's 14 are reported participant counts; separate analysis flow has not been verified. Ineligible population n or repeated periods are not imported as eligible analysis denominators. - Why unverified: Actual participant flow and endpoint-specific analysis/missingness denominators for the selected question are absent. - Reason for missing information: Eligible participant flow, analysis population and period-specific missingness/exclusion materials - Required materials and conditions: Eligible allocation/analysis/completion, period-specific dropout, exclusions, analysis populations and reasons - Materials to obtain first: Eligible allocation/analysis/completion, period-specific dropout, exclusions, analysis populations and reasons - Further research: Compare participant flow, those analyzed by period and reasons for missingness/exclusion to verify endpoint-specific denominators. - Conditions for verification: Retain null for eligible randomized_n/analyzed_n/completed_n and record what the related reported counts represent. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid turning reported participant counts or repeated periods into eligible analysis denominators. - Application exceptions: Do not replace null direct results with 0 participants. Participant counts in S01/S02 do not represent separately verified analysis flow. - Remaining uncertainty: The materials/verification still needed are as follows: Eligible participant flow, analysis population and period-specific missingness/exclusion materials. This limitation is confined to the current inputs and the historical verification scope; it does not mean absence of studies, an effect of 0, established safety or an external access failure in this review. - Referenced methods: C07: M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; design-specific adaptations are locally designed / E04: M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; local application. Reason for application in this case: Needed to avoid turning reported participant counts or repeated periods into eligible analysis denominators. This is not new reading of complete method texts, execution of official RoB 2/GRADE/causality tools, or certification of minimum clinical criteria. - Related sources: S01, S02, S05 ### N14 · Have pairing, period and carryover effects in the crossover trial been verified? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Summary read: the actual locations/values in the specified retained stored summaries were read. External material types were not accessed, acquired or read in this review; access was not attempted. - Current findings: The design, effect of interest and model for an eligible comparison are unverified. Verification of paired variance and period/carryover effects is also limited in related crossover reports. Two periods from one participant are not counted as independent people, and a paired CI is not created from marginal summaries. - Why unverified: Materials on the effect of interest and handling of pairing and period/carryover effects for the selected comparison have not been acquired. - Reason for missing information: Eligible SAP, individual period/sequence data, paired variance and model results - Required materials and conditions: Eligible effect of interest, sequence/period, washout, handling of carryover/learning, adherence, analysis model and paired variance - Materials to obtain first: Eligible effect of interest, sequence/period, washout, handling of carryover/learning, adherence, analysis model and paired variance - Further research: Compare the original analysis plan with individual period/sequence data to assess the effect of interest and the suitability of handling period/carryover effects. - Conditions for verification: Explain the unverified eligible estimand/model and the lack of pairing/carryover information in related crossovers. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid converting marginal crossover summaries into an effect between two independent groups or a paired effect/CI. - Application exceptions: Do not replace an unverified eligible design with a designation that crossover design is not applicable. Preserve unique participants in ineligible crossover results. - Remaining uncertainty: The materials/verification still needed are as follows: Eligible SAP, individual period/sequence data, paired variance and model results. This limitation is confined to the current inputs and the historical verification scope; it does not mean absence of studies, an effect of 0, established safety or an external access failure in this review. - Referenced methods: E04: M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; local application / E02: M03 §3.2.3, M08 §8.2.2–8.2.3; local application / C07: M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; design-specific adaptations are locally designed. Reason for application in this case: Needed to avoid converting marginal crossover summaries into an effect between two independent groups or a paired effect/CI. This is not new reading of complete method texts, execution of official RoB 2/GRADE/causality tools, or certification of minimum clinical criteria. - Related sources: S01, S02, S05 ### N15 · Has a completion-time effect of single-ingredient ordinary thiamine versus control been reported? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Summary read: the actual locations/values in the specified retained stored summaries were read. External material types were not accessed, acquired or read in this review; access was not attempted. - Current findings: The eligible between-group completion-time effect, CI, P, denominator and unit for ordinary thiamine alone are all unverified. Indirect values from S01/S02/S05 are not moved into this primary-effect field, nor is it filled with new calculations. - Why unverified: The original table/model and required numerical values for the selected direct effect are absent from the currently retained scope. - Reason for missing information: The eligible endpoint's original table/model, denominator/unit and effect/CI/P - Required materials and conditions: Eligible endpoint-specific effect, CI/confidence level, P, unit, denominator and original table/model - Materials to obtain first: Eligible endpoint-specific effect, CI/confidence level, P, unit, denominator and original table/model - Further research: Directly cross-check eligible original tables against the definition, denominator, unit and reported intervals of the model for the effect of interest. - Conditions for verification: Retain null for effect/CI/P/unit/n in primary_result and the eligible fact_capsule. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid moving derivative or combination values into the primary-effect field and making a direct effect appear verified. - Application exceptions: Unverified null is not replaced with an effect of 0 or P=1, and indirect values are not pooled or subjected to new arithmetic. - Remaining uncertainty: The materials/verification still needed are as follows: The eligible endpoint's original table/model, denominator/unit and effect/CI/P. This limitation is confined to the current inputs and the historical verification scope; it does not mean absence of studies, an effect of 0, established safety or an external access failure in this review. - Referenced methods: C06: M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are locally designed / C07: M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; design-specific adaptations are locally designed / E04: M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; local application / E05: M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; local application. Reason for application in this case: Needed to avoid moving derivative or combination values into the primary-effect field and making a direct effect appear verified. This is not new reading of complete method texts, execution of official RoB 2/GRADE/causality tools, or certification of minimum clinical criteria. - Related sources: ### N16 · Can a nonsignificant result be interpreted as no effect or equivalence? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Summary read: the actual locations/values in the specified retained stored summaries were read. External material types were not accessed, acquired or read in this review; access was not attempted. - Current findings: Nonsignificant P values in S01/S02 do not verify absence of effect or equivalence for ordinary thiamine. The direct effect's CI and criteria for performance importance are unverified. Without the dispersion type of marginal summaries and paired variance, no new CI or precision grade is created. - Why unverified: Without a direct interval and justified importance/equivalence criteria, the range of effects compatible with the evidence cannot be judged. - Reason for missing information: Eligible CI, paired variance and prespecified importance/equivalence criteria - Required materials and conditions: The eligible effect's CI, paired variance, prespecified important-difference/equivalence criteria and supporting justification - Materials to obtain first: The eligible effect's CI, paired variance, prespecified important-difference/equivalence criteria and supporting justification - Further research: Compare reported intervals with verified prespecified criteria for performance importance, and record the limits to interpretation. - Conditions for verification: Separate nonsignificance at P=0.58/0.61 from absence of effect/equivalence, and retain unverified direct precision/importance. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid establishing an effect size as sufficient, absent or equivalent from P values and small sample sizes alone. - Application exceptions: Do not invent an unsupported common MCID, minimum n, number of trials or duration. Do not fill in unverified parenthetical dispersion as SD/SE. - Remaining uncertainty: The materials/verification still needed are as follows: Eligible CI, paired variance and prespecified importance/equivalence criteria. This limitation is confined to the current inputs and the historical verification scope; it does not mean absence of studies, an effect of 0, established safety or an external access failure in this review. - Referenced methods: E05: M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; local application / C07: M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; design-specific adaptations are locally designed. Reason for application in this case: Needed to avoid establishing an effect size as sufficient, absent or equivalent from P values and small sample sizes alone. This is not new reading of complete method texts, execution of official RoB 2/GRADE/causality tools, or certification of minimum clinical criteria. - Related sources: S01, S02 ### N17 · What are the product and exposure in the closest report on trained cyclists? Verification status: Met Reading scope: Summary read: the actual locations/values in the specified retained stored summaries were read. External material types were not accessed, acquired or read in this review; access was not attempted. - Current findings: S01 concerns an allithiamin+pantethine/pantothenic-acid-related combination in highly trained cyclists. It records daily allithiamin 1 g and a pantothenic-acid-related compound 1.8 g (55:45), administered orally for 7 days before each ride. It is not a contrast isolating the contribution of ordinary thiamine alone. - Why unverified: Meets the criterion of preserving the attribution of product, population and reported dose, and the boundary for exclusion from direct eligibility. This is not verification of an effect of the ingredient alone. - Reason for missing information: A contrast isolating the ingredient's contribution alone and the complete actual product/methods information - Required materials and conditions: S01's original formulation, composition, administration, trained population/baseline characteristics and information on the ingredient's contribution alone - Materials to obtain first: S01's original formulation, composition, administration, trained population/baseline characteristics and information on the ingredient's contribution alone - Further research: Compare the original product/methods with the existence of an actual contrast that isolates the ingredient's contribution. - Conditions for verification: Link the allithiamin+pantothenic-acid-related combination, reported dose/7 days, trained cyclist population and reasons for exclusion. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid relabeling a derivative combination as a trial of ordinary thiamine alone because it is a TT in a closely related trained population. - Application exceptions: ordinary_thiamine=false denies the product's eligibility as single-ingredient ordinary thiamine; it does not mean the combination contains no B1-family ingredient. - Remaining uncertainty: The materials/verification still needed are as follows: A contrast isolating the ingredient's contribution alone and the complete actual product/methods information. This limitation is confined to the current inputs and the historical verification scope; it does not mean absence of studies, an effect of 0, established safety or an external access failure in this review. - Referenced methods: C04: M03 §3.2.1; detailed population criteria are locally designed / C05: M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction labeling and test adaptations are locally designed / E02: M03 §3.2.3, M08 §8.2.2–8.2.3; local application. Reason for application in this case: Needed to avoid relabeling a derivative combination as a trial of ordinary thiamine alone because it is a TT in a closely related trained population. This is not new reading of complete method texts, execution of official RoB 2/GRADE/causality tools, or certification of minimum clinical criteria. - Related sources: S01 ### N18 · Have the status of S01's time summaries and historical arithmetic been preserved? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read: the actual locations/values in the specified retained stored summaries were read. External material types were not accessed, acquired or read in this review; access was not attempted. - Current findings: S01 uses a TT in which riding at approximately 60% VO2max for 50 km is followed by completing 2,000 m. Placebo is 178.2(8.4) seconds, the combination 170.7(10.2) seconds, P=0.58, and reported participating n=6. The central-tendency/parenthetical dispersion types and paired CI are unverified. The original record's −7.5 seconds is descriptive arithmetic, not an effect of thiamine alone or a new calculation in this review. - Why unverified: The protocol and marginal numerical sentence are recorded, but analysis flow, central-tendency/dispersion types and paired effect/CI are unverified. - Reason for missing information: S01 original tables/methods, analysis flow and paired model/variance - Required materials and conditions: S01's original TT protocol, numerical sentence, mean/dispersion type, paired analysis/CI and flow - Materials to obtain first: S01's original TT protocol, numerical sentence, mean/dispersion type, paired analysis/CI and flow - Further research: Compare the original numerical sentence, endpoint time point and paired model/variance materials to distinguish descriptive summaries from the effect of interest. - Conditions for verification: Preserve the 50 km preload followed by a 2,000 m TT, 178.2(8.4)/170.7(10.2) seconds, P=0.58 and reported n=6 together with unverified dispersion/CI. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid promoting marginal summaries and the simple difference recorded at retention into a direct ordinary-thiamine effect or paired estimate. - Application exceptions: Do not infer that the parenthetical 8.4/10.2 are SD or SE. −7.5 seconds is historical descriptive arithmetic, not a new calculation in this review. - Remaining uncertainty: The materials/verification still needed are as follows: S01 original tables/methods, analysis flow and paired model/variance. This limitation is confined to the current inputs and the historical verification scope; it does not mean absence of studies, an effect of 0, established safety or an external access failure in this review. - Referenced methods: C06: M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are locally designed / C07: M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; design-specific adaptations are locally designed / E04: M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; local application / E05: M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; local application. Reason for application in this case: Needed to avoid promoting marginal summaries and the simple difference recorded at retention into a direct ordinary-thiamine effect or paired estimate. This is not new reading of complete method texts, execution of official RoB 2/GRADE/causality tools, or certification of minimum clinical criteria. - Related sources: S01 ### N19 · How are S02's TTFD dose, duration and route distinguished? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read: the actual locations/values in the specified retained stored summaries were read. External material types were not accessed, acquired or read in this review; access was not attempted. - Current findings: S02 reports TTFD 1 g/day administered for 4 days per period with a 10-day washout. Route and actual training qualification criteria are unverified. TTFD is not relabeled as ordinary thiamine alone, and oral administration is not inferred. - Why unverified: The derivative and reported administration schedule are recorded, but verification of route, product/training criteria is limited. - Reason for missing information: S02 original administration methods, product and selection/training criteria - Required materials and conditions: S02 TTFD identity, product, administration route, daily dose/duration, washout and actual training criteria - Materials to obtain first: S02 TTFD identity, product, administration route, daily dose/duration, washout and actual training criteria - Further research: Compare the original administration methods and selection/training criteria, and record eligibility differences from ordinary thiamine alone. - Conditions for verification: Preserve TTFD 1 g/day, 4 days per period and a 10-day washout, with unverified route/training qualifications. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid transferring a TTFD dose or the label supplement into verification of oral ordinary-thiamine exposure. - Application exceptions: The route is null in the original structure. Oral administration is not inferred from the word supplementation or from the washout. - Remaining uncertainty: The materials/verification still needed are as follows: S02 original administration methods, product and selection/training criteria. This limitation is confined to the current inputs and the historical verification scope; it does not mean absence of studies, an effect of 0, established safety or an external access failure in this review. - Referenced methods: C04: M03 §3.2.1; detailed population criteria are locally designed / C05: M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction labeling and test adaptations are locally designed / E02: M03 §3.2.3, M08 §8.2.2–8.2.3; local application. Reason for application in this case: Needed to avoid transferring a TTFD dose or the label supplement into verification of oral ordinary-thiamine exposure. This is not new reading of complete method texts, execution of official RoB 2/GRADE/causality tools, or certification of minimum clinical criteria. - Related sources: S02 ### N20 · Are S02's TT and the preceding day's exhaustion test the same endpoint? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read: the actual locations/values in the specified retained stored summaries were read. External material types were not accessed, acquired or read in this review; access was not attempted. - Current findings: S02's day 4, 2,000 m TT is separate from the day 3 progressive exhaustion test. TT values are placebo 204.5(5.5) seconds, TTFD 200.9(4.3) seconds, P=0.61, and reported participating n=14. Central-tendency/dispersion types, paired CI and separate analysis flow are unverified, and the two periods are not counted as 28 people. - Why unverified: The test schedule and marginal values are recorded, but central-tendency/dispersion types, paired estimation and actual analysis flow are unverified. - Reason for missing information: S02 endpoint-specific original tables/schedule, paired model and participant flow - Required materials and conditions: Definitions and values/central tendency, dispersion/denominators and paired analyses for S02's day 4 TT and day 3 progressive exhaustion test - Materials to obtain first: Definitions and values/central tendency, dispersion/denominators and paired analyses for S02's day 4 TT and day 3 progressive exhaustion test - Further research: Compare the original schedule with each endpoint's numerical sentence, denominator and paired model to attribute results to their respective tests. - Conditions for verification: Separate the day 4, 2,000 m TT values of placebo 204.5(5.5) seconds, TTFD 200.9(4.3) seconds and P=0.61 from the day 3 exhaustion test. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid pooling different tests and nonsignificant time summaries in the same paper as one direct performance effect. - Application exceptions: The 14 are unique reported participants; the two crossover periods are not counted as 28 people. Whether the parenthetical 5.5/4.3 are SD/SE is unverified. - Remaining uncertainty: The materials/verification still needed are as follows: S02 endpoint-specific original tables/schedule, paired model and participant flow. This limitation is confined to the current inputs and the historical verification scope; it does not mean absence of studies, an effect of 0, established safety or an external access failure in this review. - Referenced methods: C06: M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are locally designed / C07: M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; design-specific adaptations are locally designed / E04: M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; local application / E05: M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; local application. Reason for application in this case: Needed to avoid pooling different tests and nonsignificant time summaries in the same paper as one direct performance effect. This is not new reading of complete method texts, execution of official RoB 2/GRADE/causality tools, or certification of minimum clinical criteria. - Related sources: S02 ### N21 · Is S03's favorable fatigue report a completion-time effect? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read: the actual locations/values in the specified retained stored summaries were read. External material types were not accessed, acquired or read in this review; access was not attempted. - Current findings: S03 provides fatigue/metabolic data for 16 male athlete volunteers at a reported dose of 100 mg/day for 3 days. Fursultiamine/TTFD is verified in the keywords, but the full-text product and route are unverified. The authors' classification at a blood level of 40 ng/mL into groups of 8 and favorable fatigue/metabolic reports are preserved without transferring them to a standardized TT effect. - Why unverified: Population, reported dose and fatigue context are available, but product/route and the selected completion-time result have not been verified. - Reason for missing information: S03 original product/methods, blood-level classification and complete fatigue/metabolic results - Required materials and conditions: S03 original formulation/route, blood-level classification, fatigue/biochemical measurements, values and whether a standardized TT exists - Materials to obtain first: S03 original formulation/route, blood-level classification, fatigue/biochemical measurements, values and whether a standardized TT exists - Further research: Compare original product/methods, classification criteria and fatigue/metabolic results, and verify their differences from the completion-time endpoint. - Conditions for verification: Preserve the 16 male athlete volunteers, 100 mg/day for 3 days, and the authors' blood-level classification/favorable fatigue report, while leaving route and standardized TT effect unverified. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid omitting favorable fatigue/metabolic reports or transferring them into a direct positive effect on fixed-distance completion time. - Application exceptions: Distinguish the keyword fursultiamine/TTFD from the unverified product in the full text. The blood-level division at 40 ng/mL is not a universal diagnostic criterion for deficiency. - Remaining uncertainty: The materials/verification still needed are as follows: S03 original product/methods, blood-level classification and complete fatigue/metabolic results. This limitation is confined to the current inputs and the historical verification scope; it does not mean absence of studies, an effect of 0, established safety or an external access failure in this review. - Referenced methods: C04: M03 §3.2.1; detailed population criteria are locally designed / C05: M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction labeling and test adaptations are locally designed / C06: M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are locally designed / E09: M03 §3.2.4; locally defined boundaries for extensions. Reason for application in this case: Needed to avoid omitting favorable fatigue/metabolic reports or transferring them into a direct positive effect on fixed-distance completion time. This is not new reading of complete method texts, execution of official RoB 2/GRADE/causality tools, or certification of minimum clinical criteria. - Related sources: S03 ### N22 · What are the results in S04's female population with athletic experience? Verification status: Met Reading scope: Summary read: the actual locations/values in the specified retained stored summaries were read. External material types were not accessed, acquired or read in this review; access was not attempted. - Current findings: S04 comprises 9 women with physical-education/athletic and Taekwondo experience. The three crossover treatments of oral TTFD, placebo and training are distinguished. It records exercise at 70% VO2max and 50 rpm for 60 minutes with biochemical/RPE measurements, so even favorable results do not represent a direct effect on fixed-distance TT completion time. - Why unverified: Meets the record criterion of preserving the boundaries of the actual population and treatments/other endpoints. This does not mean that the original plan and every result have been fully cross-checked. - Reason for missing information: S04 selection, each crossover treatment/period and complete original biochemical/RPE results - Required materials and conditions: S04 selection/athletic experience, crossover periods, TTFD/training/placebo, fixed-duration measurements and each result - Materials to obtain first: S04 selection/athletic experience, crossover periods, TTFD/training/placebo, fixed-duration measurements and each result - Further research: Compare selection criteria, the three crossover treatments and measurement schedule/stopping criteria to verify the attribution of each result. - Conditions for verification: Distinguish the 9 women, physical-education/athletic and Taekwondo experience, oral TTFD, and biochemistry/RPE during fixed 60-minute exercise. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid mislabeling a population with athletic experience as untrained or turning biochemical/RPE results into a completion-time effect. - Application exceptions: The training and TTFD periods are separate crossover treatments. Do not assign the TT completion-time direction to a fixed 60-minute test. - Remaining uncertainty: The materials/verification still needed are as follows: S04 selection, each crossover treatment/period and complete original biochemical/RPE results. This limitation is confined to the current inputs and the historical verification scope; it does not mean absence of studies, an effect of 0, established safety or an external access failure in this review. - Referenced methods: C04: M03 §3.2.1; detailed population criteria are locally designed / C05: M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction labeling and test adaptations are locally designed / C06: M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are locally designed / E02: M03 §3.2.3, M08 §8.2.2–8.2.3; local application / E09: M03 §3.2.4; locally defined boundaries for extensions. Reason for application in this case: Needed to avoid mislabeling a population with athletic experience as untrained or turning biochemical/RPE results into a completion-time effect. This is not new reading of complete method texts, execution of official RoB 2/GRADE/causality tools, or certification of minimum clinical criteria. - Related sources: S04 ### N23 · Can S04's 10 mg/kg and three administrations be converted? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read: the actual locations/values in the specified retained stored summaries were read. External material types were not accessed, acquired or read in this review; access was not attempted. - Current findings: S04 records 10 mg/kg and three administrations, 30 minutes after meals, 150 mL water and 4 weeks. It is ambiguous whether 10 mg/kg is a divided total daily dose or the amount at each administration. No multiplication by 3, body-weight conversion or thiamine-equivalent calculation is performed, and the original conflicting_or_ambiguous wording is preserved. - Why unverified: The dose sentence is available, but its meaning as total daily dose/amount at each administration has not been verified. The ambiguity has not been arbitrarily resolved. - Reason for missing information: S04 original dose sentence and actual dose per administration (1 time)/total daily dose and administration records - Required materials and conditions: S04 original dose sentence, dose per administration (1 time)/total daily dose, actual administration and product/duration records - Materials to obtain first: S04 original dose sentence, dose per administration (1 time)/total daily dose, actual administration and product/duration records - Further research: Compare the original dose sentence with actual administration records to verify the definitions of total daily dose and divided amounts. - Conditions for verification: Retain the records of 10 mg/kg, three administrations, 30 minutes after meals/150 mL water and 4 weeks, together with unverified total dose/dose per administration (1 time). - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid repairing an ambiguous dose expression into an arbitrary daily dose or thiamine-equivalent dose. - Application exceptions: Do not multiply 10 mg/kg by 3 or by mean body weight based on the wording three administrations. Do not turn ambiguity into a newly established conflict between verified opposing facts. - Remaining uncertainty: The materials/verification still needed are as follows: S04 original dose sentence and actual dose per administration (1 time)/total daily dose and administration records. This limitation is confined to the current inputs and the historical verification scope; it does not mean absence of studies, an effect of 0, established safety or an external access failure in this review. - Referenced methods: C05: M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction labeling and test adaptations are locally designed / C07: M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; design-specific adaptations are locally designed / E02: M03 §3.2.3, M08 §8.2.2–8.2.3; local application. Reason for application in this case: Needed to avoid repairing an ambiguous dose expression into an arbitrary daily dose or thiamine-equivalent dose. This is not new reading of complete method texts, execution of official RoB 2/GRADE/causality tools, or certification of minimum clinical criteria. - Related sources: S04 ### N24 · Does S05's B1 content constitute a contrast of added B1 alone? Verification status: Met Reading scope: Summary read: the actual locations/values in the specified retained stored summaries were read. External material types were not accessed, acquired or read in this review; access was not attempted. - Current findings: S05 uses the oral Ex PLUS combination, 1 tablet daily for 28 days per period. Each tablet is recorded as containing B1 33.6 mg, B2 10 mg, B6 50 mg, B12 750 μg, E 16.8 mg, inositol 20 mg, calcium 18.9 mg and taurine 20 mg. This is not a contrast isolating the contribution of B1 alone. - Why unverified: Meets the criterion of preserving the combination composition, exposure and limits on attributing a contribution to a single ingredient. This is not verification of an effect of B1 alone. - Reason for missing information: Product/salt and an actual contrast isolating the contribution of B1 alone - Required materials and conditions: All Ex PLUS ingredients/salts, product, daily tablets, duration, concomitant exposure and a contrast isolating the ingredient's contribution - Materials to obtain first: All Ex PLUS ingredients/salts, product, daily tablets, duration, concomitant exposure and a contrast isolating the ingredient's contribution - Further research: Compare all ingredient/product records with the actual control to examine whether the trial isolated the contribution of a single ingredient. - Conditions for verification: Preserve all reported ingredients in addition to B1 33.6 mg, and label it as a combination product taken at 1 tablet daily for 28 days per period. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid reattributing an effect of a combination containing B1 to B1 alone. - Application exceptions: ordinary_thiamine=false denies eligibility as single-ingredient ordinary thiamine; it does not mean that no B1 molecules are present. - Remaining uncertainty: The materials/verification still needed are as follows: Product/salt and an actual contrast isolating the contribution of B1 alone. This limitation is confined to the current inputs and the historical verification scope; it does not mean absence of studies, an effect of 0, established safety or an external access failure in this review. - Referenced methods: C05: M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction labeling and test adaptations are locally designed / E02: M03 §3.2.3, M08 §8.2.2–8.2.3; local application. Reason for application in this case: Needed to avoid reattributing an effect of a combination containing B1 to B1 alone. This is not new reading of complete method texts, execution of official RoB 2/GRADE/causality tools, or certification of minimum clinical criteria. - Related sources: S05 ### N25 · How are S05's 32 participants and time to exhaustion preserved? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read: the actual locations/values in the specified retained stored summaries were read. External material types were not accessed, acquired or read in this review; access was not attempted. - Current findings: S05 has 32 unique non-athletes, initial sequences of 16/16, 28 days per period and a 14-day washout. Time to exhaustion is placebo 12.56±SD 1.9 minutes and combination 15.82±SD 1.91 minutes, P<0.0001, with longer being better. The 32 unique participants are not counted as 64, and the completed count and paired CI are unverified. - Why unverified: The unique denominator, exhaustion results and reported SD are available, but completion flow, paired interval and period-specific missingness are unverified. - Reason for missing information: S05 flow/period-specific missingness, Figure 4 original results and paired interval - Required materials and conditions: Unique participants, sequence/period, washout, non-athlete selection, and the exhaustion result's mean/SD/direction and CI - Materials to obtain first: Unique participants, sequence/period, washout, non-athlete selection, and the exhaustion result's mean/SD/direction and CI - Further research: Compare participant flow and crossover schedule with the units, direction and dispersion in Figure 4/results. - Conditions for verification: Attribute the 32 unique participants, initial sequences of 16/16, 14-day washout, and placebo 12.56±1.9 minutes/combination 15.82±1.91 minutes with P<0.0001 to the respective exhaustion endpoint. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid counting two periods as 64 people or displaying time to exhaustion, for which longer is better, as a TT, for which shorter is better. - Application exceptions: Combination results in non-athletes are not a direct effect of a single-ingredient product in trained adults. Reported SD is retained but not transferred to a paired SD/CI. - Remaining uncertainty: The materials/verification still needed are as follows: S05 flow/period-specific missingness, Figure 4 original results and paired interval. This limitation is confined to the current inputs and the historical verification scope; it does not mean absence of studies, an effect of 0, established safety or an external access failure in this review. - Referenced methods: C04: M03 §3.2.1; detailed population criteria are locally designed / C06: M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are locally designed / C07: M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; design-specific adaptations are locally designed / E04: M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; local application / E05: M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; local application. Reason for application in this case: Needed to avoid counting two periods as 64 people or displaying time to exhaustion, for which longer is better, as a TT, for which shorter is better. This is not new reading of complete method texts, execution of official RoB 2/GRADE/causality tools, or certification of minimum clinical criteria. - Related sources: S05 ### N26 · Can repeated-measures ANOVA and marginal SD establish a paired effect? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read: the actual locations/values in the specified retained stored summaries were read. External material types were not accessed, acquired or read in this review; access was not attempted. - Current findings: S05 uses repeated-measures ANOVA, and some between-group tests are recorded as unpaired. Two-way repeated-measures ANOVA and Bonferroni post hoc tests are linked to exhaustion. Actual handling of period/carryover effects, multiplicity across all endpoints and paired variance/CI are unverified; no new paired interval is calculated from marginal SD. - Why unverified: Some analysis methods are verified, but full cross-checking of the SAP and period/carryover, multiplicity/paired estimation remains outstanding. - Reason for missing information: S05 SAP, original exhaustion model, period/sequence and paired variance - Required materials and conditions: S05 SAP, repeated-measures/period/sequence/carryover model, Bonferroni/multiplicity and paired variance/CI - Materials to obtain first: S05 SAP, repeated-measures/period/sequence/carryover model, Bonferroni/multiplicity and paired variance/CI - Further research: Compare the original model for the exhaustion result with the SAP and period/sequence data to verify the scope of the paired structure and handling of multiplicity. - Conditions for verification: Distinguish two-way repeated-measures ANOVA+Bonferroni for exhaustion from unverified actual period/carryover handling and paired CI. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid turning a significant combination exhaustion result into verification of adequate paired estimation or direct precision. - Application exceptions: Do not generalize the record of some unpaired between-group tests to the analysis of every endpoint. Paired variance differs from marginal SD. - Remaining uncertainty: The materials/verification still needed are as follows: S05 SAP, original exhaustion model, period/sequence and paired variance. This limitation is confined to the current inputs and the historical verification scope; it does not mean absence of studies, an effect of 0, established safety or an external access failure in this review. - Referenced methods: E04: M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; local application / E05: M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; local application / E06: M08 Table 8.2.a, M04 §4.6.3; local application. Reason for application in this case: Needed to avoid turning a significant combination exhaustion result into verification of adequate paired estimation or direct precision. This is not new reading of complete method texts, execution of official RoB 2/GRADE/causality tools, or certification of minimum clinical criteria. - Related sources: S05 ### N27 · Are S06's TPP and physiological results an oral ordinary-thiamine TT? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read: the actual locations/values in the specified retained stored summaries were read. External material types were not accessed, acquired or read in this review; access was not attempted. - Current findings: S06 reports on 27 male athletes receiving TPP 1 mg/kg. Actual administration schedule, route, training qualifications/analysis flow are unverified. Route is not inferred from the 0.9% saline control, and favorable lactate, VO2max and heart-rate context is not turned into a TT completion-time effect. - Why unverified: Product/reported dose and other physiological endpoints are recorded, but route, schedule and denominator/actual TT materials are unverified. - Reason for missing information: S06 original administration/selection, flow and complete physiological results - Required materials and conditions: TPP product, 1 mg/kg administration schedule/route, saline control, training qualifications and physiological endpoints - Materials to obtain first: TPP product, 1 mg/kg administration schedule/route, saline control, training qualifications and physiological endpoints - Further research: Compare the original product, administration methods and physiological measurements/schedule to record eligibility differences in exposure and outcomes. - Conditions for verification: Preserve TPP 1 mg/kg, unverified route/schedule, lactate/VO2max/heart-rate results and an unverified standardized TT. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid inferring that TPP and a saline control verify oral ordinary thiamine or transferring physiological results to completion time. - Application exceptions: Do not infer administration route from a 0.9% saline control alone. The 27 are reported participants; separate analysis flow is unverified. - Remaining uncertainty: The materials/verification still needed are as follows: S06 original administration/selection, flow and complete physiological results. This limitation is confined to the current inputs and the historical verification scope; it does not mean absence of studies, an effect of 0, established safety or an external access failure in this review. - Referenced methods: C04: M03 §3.2.1; detailed population criteria are locally designed / C05: M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction labeling and test adaptations are locally designed / C06: M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are locally designed / C07: M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; design-specific adaptations are locally designed / E09: M03 §3.2.4; locally defined boundaries for extensions. Reason for application in this case: Needed to avoid inferring that TPP and a saline control verify oral ordinary thiamine or transferring physiological results to completion time. This is not new reading of complete method texts, execution of official RoB 2/GRADE/causality tools, or certification of minimum clinical criteria. - Related sources: S06 ### N28 · Have reports been distinguished from counts of unique trials/people? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read: the actual locations/values in the specified retained stored summaries were read. External material types were not accessed, acquired or read in this review; access was not attempted. - Current findings: The originally retained families F01–F06 are all excluded from direct eligibility. Abstracts, publisher entries/copies and reviews are not new trials/people. Cohort identity between S01 and S02 has not been verified, and shared authors alone do not establish identity or independence. No new pooled n or independent replication count is created. - Why unverified: Original family/report links exist, but verification of cohort overlap and all aspects of independence remains outstanding. - Reason for missing information: Original recruitment/participant, trial timing and report/cohort linkage materials - Required materials and conditions: Original reports, copies/bibliographic records, participant overlap and cohort independence for the six excluded families - Materials to obtain first: Original reports, copies/bibliographic records, participant overlap and cohort independence for the six excluded families - Further research: Compare original recruitment/participants, trial timing, authors/registration and report links to record family relationships and unverified overlap. - Conditions for verification: Distinguish retained F01–F06 from the 11 materials, and do not newly assign unique eligible replications or pooled n. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid counting abstracts/copies/reviews of the same trial as independent replications or merging them based on shared authors alone. - Application exceptions: Whether S01 and S02 are the same cohort is unverified. Shared authors are not evidence of identity or independence. - Remaining uncertainty: The materials/verification still needed are as follows: Original recruitment/participant, trial timing and report/cohort linkage materials. This limitation is confined to the current inputs and the historical verification scope; it does not mean absence of studies, an effect of 0, established safety or an external access failure in this review. - Referenced methods: C02: Distinction between studies and reports in M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2; cohort/outcome linkage is a local application / E07: M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2, M15 §15.3.1; local application / H07: M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2; adaptations for harm materials are locally designed. Reason for application in this case: Needed to avoid counting abstracts/copies/reviews of the same trial as independent replications or merging them based on shared authors alone. This is not new reading of complete method texts, execution of official RoB 2/GRADE/causality tools, or certification of minimum clinical criteria. - Related sources: S01, S02, S03, S04, S05, S06, S07, S11 ### N29 · Is the S07 review a new performance trial of the ingredient alone? Verification status: Met Reading scope: Summary read: the actual locations/values in the specified retained stored summaries were read. External material types were not accessed, acquired or read in this review; access was not attempted. - Current findings: S07 is a review of thiamine and carbohydrate metabolism, with historical HTML/PDF access and visual checking of some pages recorded. Its original study_id is null. The shorthand citation B1 is not equated with the original trials' derivatives/combinations/other endpoints, and the review itself is not counted as a new trial, person or direct replication. - Why unverified: Meets the record criterion of preserving the review's discovery/context role and limits of citation reuse. This does not mean that the full review has been read in the current review. - Reason for missing information: Materials linking review citations to the original trials' actual formulations/endpoints - Required materials and conditions: S07 review links to original trials/formulations and report citations, and the verification scope of the relevant sections - Materials to obtain first: S07 review links to original trials/formulations and report citations, and the verification scope of the relevant sections - Further research: Compare the review's citations with the actual formulations, populations and endpoints in the original materials to record citation relationships. - Conditions for verification: Link citations in the review to the original derivative/combination reports, without counting them as additional trials/denominators. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid displaying the review's B1 shorthand as direct replication that erases differences in original formulations/combinations and endpoints. - Application exceptions: The review is material for discovery/context; its original study_id null is not assigned a new clinical family identity. - Remaining uncertainty: The materials/verification still needed are as follows: Materials linking review citations to the original trials' actual formulations/endpoints. This limitation is confined to the current inputs and the historical verification scope; it does not mean absence of studies, an effect of 0, established safety or an external access failure in this review. - Referenced methods: C02: Distinction between studies and reports in M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2; cohort/outcome linkage is a local application / C05: M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction labeling and test adaptations are locally designed / E07: M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2, M15 §15.3.1; local application. Reason for application in this case: Needed to avoid displaying the review's B1 shorthand as direct replication that erases differences in original formulations/combinations and endpoints. This is not new reading of complete method texts, execution of official RoB 2/GRADE/causality tools, or certification of minimum clinical criteria. - Related sources: S07, S01, S02, S03, S04, S05, S06 ### N30 · Do the S11 link and the date stated in the article prove prospective registration? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read: the actual locations/values in the specified retained stored summaries were read. External material types were not accessed, acquired or read in this review; access was not attempted. - Current findings: S05 states NCT05586295 and 09/12/2022; S11 records verification of only an 11-line shell at that time. First submission/study start, version history, prospective registration and endpoint hierarchy are unverified. The date format is not newly interpreted, and the registration link for the same F05 is not counted as an independent trial. - Why unverified: The number/article date and limited shell are available, but the complete official history and planned content have not been verified. - Reason for missing information: F05 complete official registration/change history, initial recruitment/submission and protocol/SAP - Required materials and conditions: NCT05586295 complete official record, first submission/registration, study start, version history and planned endpoints/SAP - Materials to obtain first: NCT05586295 complete official record, first submission/registration, study start, version history and planned endpoints/SAP - Further research: Compare the complete official change history with initial recruitment/submission and endpoint/SAP versions to examine the relationship between plans and reporting. - Conditions for verification: Separate the historical 11-line shell from unverified first registration/study start and prospective registration/hierarchy. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid promoting a registration number or shell into verification of prospective registration, endpoint hierarchy or actual planned content. - Application exceptions: Preserve S05's 09/12/2022 as the original string without arbitrarily interpreting the date format. S11 links to the plan for the same F05 and is not a new trial. - Remaining uncertainty: The materials/verification still needed are as follows: F05 complete official registration/change history, initial recruitment/submission and protocol/SAP. This limitation is confined to the current inputs and the historical verification scope; it does not mean absence of studies, an effect of 0, established safety or an external access failure in this review. - Referenced methods: C02: Distinction between studies and reports in M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2; cohort/outcome linkage is a local application / C09: M04 §4.5, §4.6.3; limits of the current material conversion follow the user-defined scope and local design / E06: M08 Table 8.2.a, M04 §4.6.3; local application. Reason for application in this case: Needed to avoid promoting a registration number or shell into verification of prospective registration, endpoint hierarchy or actual planned content. This is not new reading of complete method texts, execution of official RoB 2/GRADE/causality tools, or certification of minimum clinical criteria. - Related sources: S05, S11 ### N31 · Have the planned endpoints and reports of each related family been cross-checked? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Summary read: the actual locations/values in the specified retained stored summaries were read. External material types were not accessed, acquired or read in this review; access was not attempted. - Current findings: The six related families are recorded as having limited verification of registration/protocols and endpoint hierarchy, preventing definitive comparison of planned outcomes with the selection of reported results. This is not turned into confirmed non-registration, selective reporting or a new bias grade for eligible thiamine alone. - Why unverified: There are insufficient materials to compare the original plan and analysis versions with actual reporting. - Reason for missing information: Family-specific registration, protocol/SAP and endpoint hierarchy/change materials - Required materials and conditions: Original registration, protocol, SAP, endpoint hierarchy/time points and reasons for changes for eligible/related families - Materials to obtain first: Original registration, protocol, SAP, endpoint hierarchy/time points and reasons for changes for eligible/related families - Further research: Compare plan versions with actual results' endpoints, time points, analyses and reasons for changes. - Conditions for verification: Preserve the unverified original plans and the scope within which selective reporting cannot be cross-checked. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid turning unacquired plans into confirmed non-registration or selective reporting. - Application exceptions: Limitations of the plan audit for related families are not a new bias grade for an eligible single-ingredient product. Do not arbitrarily assign an endpoint hierarchy. - Remaining uncertainty: The materials/verification still needed are as follows: Family-specific registration, protocol/SAP and endpoint hierarchy/change materials. This limitation is confined to the current inputs and the historical verification scope; it does not mean absence of studies, an effect of 0, established safety or an external access failure in this review. - Referenced methods: E06: M08 Table 8.2.a, M04 §4.6.3; local application / C09: M04 §4.5, §4.6.3; limits of the current material conversion follow the user-defined scope and local design. Reason for application in this case: Needed to avoid turning unacquired plans into confirmed non-registration or selective reporting. This is not new reading of complete method texts, execution of official RoB 2/GRADE/causality tools, or certification of minimum clinical criteria. - Related sources: S01, S02, S03, S04, S05, S06, S11 ### N32 · How are company support and independence distinguished? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read: the actual locations/values in the specified retained stored summaries were read. External material types were not accessed, acquired or read in this review; access was not attempted. - Current findings: S05 records Prince Pharmaceutical funding and product/blinding assistance alongside public funding from Taiwan, MOST-109-2622-H-179-001, and a declaration of no known competing interests. An unlisted company affiliation does not verify absence of employment or independence. Funding/supply information for other families is unverified. - Why unverified: S05's support/declaration is available, but actual analysis/employment roles, independence and funding information for other families remain to be verified. - Reason for missing information: Family-specific funding, supply, analysis/author/employment roles and conflict-of-interest materials - Required materials and conditions: Family-specific funding, product/placebo supply, analysis/author roles, employment/conflicts of interest and independence - Materials to obtain first: Family-specific funding, product/placebo supply, analysis/author roles, employment/conflicts of interest and independence - Further research: Compare funding/supply, analysis/author roles and conflict-of-interest statements to record verified pathways of influence and gaps. - Conditions for verification: Preserve S05's company+public funding, product/blinding assistance and conflict-of-interest declaration together with unverified information for other families. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid omitting supply/support records or establishing independence solely from declarations/affiliations. - Application exceptions: Company support alone does not lead to automatic exclusion. The absence of a printed company affiliation is not filled in as absence of employment or verified independence. - Remaining uncertainty: The materials/verification still needed are as follows: Family-specific funding, supply, analysis/author/employment roles and conflict-of-interest materials. This limitation is confined to the current inputs and the historical verification scope; it does not mean absence of studies, an effect of 0, established safety or an external access failure in this review. - Referenced methods: C10: Chamgap's own independence/attribution criteria. The official method sections used in this pilot do not validate every detail of these items / E07: M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2, M15 §15.3.1; local application. Reason for application in this case: Needed to avoid omitting supply/support records or establishing independence solely from declarations/affiliations. This is not new reading of complete method texts, execution of official RoB 2/GRADE/causality tools, or certification of minimum clinical criteria. - Related sources: S01, S02, S03, S04, S05, S06 ### N33 · What is the scope of the historical record that no notice was found? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read: the actual locations/values in the specified retained stored summaries were read. External material types were not accessed, acquired or read in this review; access was not attempted. - Current findings: The record states that no correction/retraction notices were found in the sources checked at that time for S01/S02/S04/S05, but does not guarantee absence of notices. The verification scope of other families is also limited. The currently retained corrections array is empty, but no new up-to-date publisher/DOI search or full-text recheck was performed in this review. - Why unverified: The historical verification scope is recorded, but absence of all notices and the current version status have not been verified. - Reason for missing information: Family-specific verification logs, relevant notices/versions and impact materials - Required materials and conditions: Family-specific correction/retraction check logs, publisher/PMC notices, DOI and cutoff date/version - Materials to obtain first: Family-specific correction/retraction check logs, publisher/PMC notices, DOI and cutoff date/version - Further research: In an authorized update, compare actual sources checked, dates/versions and notices' effects on the respective reports/results. - Conditions for verification: Display the limits of none_located_in_checked_sources together with the absence of an external access attempt in the current review. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid turning the failure to find a notice in limited historical checks into certification that no notices currently exist. - Application exceptions: Distinguish the historical partial checks of S01/S02/S04/S05 from the unverified scope of S03/S06. There are no publisher/DOI lookups in this review. - Remaining uncertainty: The materials/verification still needed are as follows: Family-specific verification logs, relevant notices/versions and impact materials. This limitation is confined to the current inputs and the historical verification scope; it does not mean absence of studies, an effect of 0, established safety or an external access failure in this review. - Referenced methods: C09: M04 §4.5, §4.6.3; limits of the current material conversion follow the user-defined scope and local design. Reason for application in this case: Needed to avoid turning the failure to find a notice in limited historical checks into certification that no notices currently exist. This is not new reading of complete method texts, execution of official RoB 2/GRADE/causality tools, or certification of minimum clinical criteria. - Related sources: S01, S02, S03, S04, S05, S06 ### N34 · Were harms and discontinuations collected for the same single-ingredient product and population? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Summary read: the actual locations/values in the specified retained stored summaries were read. External material types were not accessed, acquired or read in this review; access was not attempted. - Current findings: Harm denominators for the same single-ingredient ordinary thiamine in trained adults are unverified. AE/SAE and discontinuations in related families are also mostly unverified, and S05's general statement is not a group/period-specific count. Records without counts of people with events, event counts and exposure duration are not converted into 0 events or incidence. - Why unverified: Systematic collection, comparison, time/denominator and discontinuation materials for the selected same exposure/population are absent. - Reason for missing information: Eligible exposure, event definitions/collection, denominator/time, comparison and discontinuation materials - Required materials and conditions: Eligible exposed people/people with events, event counts, duration, AE/SAE definitions/collection, dropout/discontinuation and comparator groups - Materials to obtain first: Eligible exposed people/people with events, event counts, duration, AE/SAE definitions/collection, dropout/discontinuation and comparator groups - Further research: Compare event collection methods, duration and denominators/reasons for discontinuation for the same population/exposure to verify the scope for interpreting frequency. - Conditions for verification: Record unverified eligible harm denominators and the lack of AE/SAE/discontinuation information in related families. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid turning efficacy-data gaps or general safety descriptions into 0 events/incidence for the same exposure. - Application exceptions: Do not delete indirect efficacy reports because harms are unverified. Distinguish event counts, people and overlap across periods. - Remaining uncertainty: The materials/verification still needed are as follows: Eligible exposure, event definitions/collection, denominator/time, comparison and discontinuation materials. This limitation is confined to the current inputs and the historical verification scope; it does not mean absence of studies, an effect of 0, established safety or an external access failure in this review. - Referenced methods: E10: M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; local application / H01: M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; detailed distinctions are locally designed / H02: Design-specific harm questions in M19 §19.2; details of temporal relationships are locally designed / H03: M19 §19.2.2–19.2.4, M03 §3.2.3; local application / H04: M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; local application / H06: M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4, M04 §4.6.3; local application. Reason for application in this case: Needed to avoid turning efficacy-data gaps or general safety descriptions into 0 events/incidence for the same exposure. This is not new reading of complete method texts, execution of official RoB 2/GRADE/causality tools, or certification of minimum clinical criteria. - Related sources: S01, S02, S03, S04, S05, S06 ### N35 · Does S05's statement of no adverse effects mean 0 events per group? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read: the actual locations/values in the specified retained stored summaries were read. External material types were not accessed, acquired or read in this review; access was not attempted. - Current findings: S05's general statement of no adverse effects and routine-test context are recorded, but AE is not a value reported as group/period-specific event counts. SAE and discontinuation counts are unverified. These are not transferred to 0 events or the safety/incidence of ordinary thiamine alone in trained adults. - Why unverified: A general statement exists, but event collection/denominators, period-specific counts and discontinuation materials are not verified. - Reason for missing information: S05 harm collection, group/period-specific events/denominators and discontinuation materials - Required materials and conditions: Combination-product AE/SAE/discontinuation definitions, collection, people/event counts by group/period, exposure and tests - Materials to obtain first: Combination-product AE/SAE/discontinuation definitions, collection, people/event counts by group/period, exposure and tests - Further research: Compare original collection methods, period-specific events/discontinuations and test tables to distinguish actual counts from the scope of descriptions. - Conditions for verification: Preserve the general statement in Discussion/Table 3 together with not_reported_as_arm_period_counts. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid turning a general statement of no adverse effects or routine test results into a complete event count or safety certification. - Application exceptions: Observations of a combination in non-athletes are not incidence for an eligible single-ingredient product. Normal blood tests do not mean absence of all harms. - Remaining uncertainty: The materials/verification still needed are as follows: S05 harm collection, group/period-specific events/denominators and discontinuation materials. This limitation is confined to the current inputs and the historical verification scope; it does not mean absence of studies, an effect of 0, established safety or an external access failure in this review. - Referenced methods: E10: M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; local application / H01: M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; detailed distinctions are locally designed / H04: M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; local application / H06: M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4, M04 §4.6.3; local application / H09: Chamgap's own interpretive boundaries. Informed by M19 principles; not execution of an official causality tool. Reason for application in this case: Needed to avoid turning a general statement of no adverse effects or routine test results into a complete event count or safety certification. This is not new reading of complete method texts, execution of official RoB 2/GRADE/causality tools, or certification of minimum clinical criteria. - Related sources: S05 ### N36 · Is S09's oral hydrochloride product document a safety result from an athlete trial? Verification status: Met Reading scope: Summary read: the actual locations/values in the specified retained stored summaries were read. External material types were not accessed, acquired or read in this review; access was not attempted. - Current findings: S09 is the UK SmPC for Thiamine HCl 100 mg tablets, recording a text revision of 2025-02-18 and PL43461/0038. GI/hypersensitivity reactions and product-specific precautions are official safety background, not verification of the same product or incidence in an athlete trial. Injection/excipient/special-population context is not extended to personal safety for all oral ordinary thiamine. - Why unverified: Meets the record criterion of preserving the boundaries between official safety background for a specific product/version and trial/personal safety. This is not current reading of the full official text. - Reason for missing information: Actual applicable populations, excipients and harm records for the relevant product/version - Required materials and conditions: Thiamine HCl 100 mg product SmPC version/jurisdiction, applicable precautions/adverse reactions, populations/excipients - Materials to obtain first: Thiamine HCl 100 mg product SmPC version/jurisdiction, applicable precautions/adverse reactions, populations/excipients - Further research: Compare the applicable populations, excipients, harms and conditions of use of the same product/version, and record differences from the trial exposure. - Conditions for verification: Limit the specific UK 100 mg oral product and its 2025-02-18 revision/PL43461/0038 record to their respective context. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid extending an official product's list of harms to incidence in a specific trial or personal safety for all salts/products. - Application exceptions: Injection-related reactions are not transferred to oral incidence. Precautions concerning children/pregnancy and excipients are not turned into universal contraindications for all thiamine. - Remaining uncertainty: The materials/verification still needed are as follows: Actual applicable populations, excipients and harm records for the relevant product/version. This limitation is confined to the current inputs and the historical verification scope; it does not mean absence of studies, an effect of 0, established safety or an external access failure in this review. - Referenced methods: C05: M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction labeling and test adaptations are locally designed / C09: M04 §4.5, §4.6.3; limits of the current material conversion follow the user-defined scope and local design / E10: M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; local application / H05: Design considerations in M19 §19.2.2–19.2.4; detailed confounding records are locally designed / H09: Chamgap's own interpretive boundaries. Informed by M19 principles; not execution of an official causality tool. Reason for application in this case: Needed to avoid extending an official product's list of harms to incidence in a specific trial or personal safety for all salts/products. This is not new reading of complete method texts, execution of official RoB 2/GRADE/causality tools, or certification of minimum clinical criteria. - Related sources: S09 ### N37 · Does the absence of an established upper limit mean unlimited high-dose safety? Verification status: Met Reading scope: Summary read: the actual locations/values in the specified retained stored summaries were read. External material types were not accessed, acquired or read in this review; access was not attempted. - Current findings: S08 contains the historical risk, interaction and at-risk-population descriptions from the NIH ODS official thiamine guidance. Absence of an established upper limit does not mean unlimited high-dose safety, 0 events in an eligible trial or personal dosing instructions. Efficacy descriptions for other diseases are not reassessed as this performance effect. - Why unverified: Meets the record criterion of separating official general safety background from a single performance trial/personal safety. This is not current verification of the full official text. - Reason for missing information: The latest official version/risk and interaction information, and harm materials for the same exposure - Required materials and conditions: Version/scope of NIH official safety/interaction and at-risk-population descriptions, and evidence for the same exposure - Materials to obtain first: Version/scope of NIH official safety/interaction and at-risk-population descriptions, and evidence for the same exposure - Further research: Compare the scope of risks/interactions in the official version with population/exposure matching, and define necessary harm questions separately. - Conditions for verification: Separate the historical NIH risk/interaction descriptions and limitations of the absence of an established UL from current external reading. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid turning the absence of an established UL or nutritional explanations into unlimited high-dose safety or personal dosing instructions. - Application exceptions: Efficacy descriptions for other diseases are not reassessed in this performance question. Official guidance does not substitute for 0 events per group in an eligible trial. - Remaining uncertainty: The materials/verification still needed are as follows: The latest official version/risk and interaction information, and harm materials for the same exposure. This limitation is confined to the current inputs and the historical verification scope; it does not mean absence of studies, an effect of 0, established safety or an external access failure in this review. - Referenced methods: C09: M04 §4.5, §4.6.3; limits of the current material conversion follow the user-defined scope and local design / E10: M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; local application / H08: M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; local application / H09: Chamgap's own interpretive boundaries. Informed by M19 principles; not execution of an official causality tool. Reason for application in this case: Needed to avoid turning the absence of an established UL or nutritional explanations into unlimited high-dose safety or personal dosing instructions. This is not new reading of complete method texts, execution of official RoB 2/GRADE/causality tools, or certification of minimum clinical criteria. - Related sources: S08 ### N38 · Within what scope was the official refeeding excerpt used? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read: the actual locations/values in the specified retained stored summaries were read. External material types were not accessed, acquired or read in this review; access was not attempted. - Current findings: S10 records verification only of the historical official search excerpt from NICE CG32 recommendation 1.4 stating that high-risk refeeding requires skilled professionals. The two direct-URL access failures and the absence of dosing-regimen extraction/recommendation are preserved. This is not turned into full-text reading or athlete dosing instructions, and no external access was attempted in this review. - Why unverified: The scope of the official excerpt is recorded, but the full recommendation and current version were not cross-checked. - Reason for missing information: The official original text/version and applicable population of the relevant CG32 section - Required materials and conditions: The official original text/version of CG32 recommendation 1.4, high-risk refeeding population/professional context and actual access level - Materials to obtain first: The official original text/version of CG32 recommendation 1.4, high-risk refeeding population/professional context and actual access level - Further research: Compare the relevant section, population and professional requirements of the official recommendation with the actual access scope. - Conditions for verification: Retain official_search_excerpt_only and the boundary of high-risk refeeding requiring skilled professionals. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid promoting an official search excerpt into full-text reading or direct verification of athlete dosing or deficiency treatment regimens. - Application exceptions: The two historical direct-URL failures are historical records. They do not constitute Inaccessible status in this review, and no dosing regimen is extracted/recommended. - Remaining uncertainty: The materials/verification still needed are as follows: The official original text/version and applicable population of the relevant CG32 section. This limitation is confined to the current inputs and the historical verification scope; it does not mean absence of studies, an effect of 0, established safety or an external access failure in this review. - Referenced methods: C03: Data collection/selection principles in M04 §4.5–4.6; separation of access from reading and the hyperlink contract are locally designed / C04: M03 §3.2.1; detailed population criteria are locally designed / C09: M04 §4.5, §4.6.3; limits of the current material conversion follow the user-defined scope and local design / H08: M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; local application / H09: Chamgap's own interpretive boundaries. Informed by M19 principles; not execution of an official causality tool. Reason for application in this case: Needed to avoid promoting an official search excerpt into full-text reading or direct verification of athlete dosing or deficiency treatment regimens. This is not new reading of complete method texts, execution of official RoB 2/GRADE/causality tools, or certification of minimum clinical criteria. - Related sources: S10 ### N39 · Do short-term related materials answer questions about optimal dose, long-term safety and other populations? Verification status: Not applicable Reading scope: Summary read: the actual locations/values in the specified retained stored summaries were read. External material types were not accessed, acquired or read in this review; access was not attempted. - Current findings: This table is limited to the selected TT completion-time question. Deficiency treatment, optimal dose, long-term persistence/safety, special populations/personal dosing and anti-doping/product regulatory compliance are separate questions. Related short-term derivative, combination or general safety materials do not establish their answers. - Why unverified: Establishing extended effects, personal application or regulatory compliance is outside the judgment scope of the current narrow TT table. This does not certify absence of evidence for those questions. - Reason for missing information: Direct/long-term and applicability materials suited to a separately authorized extended question - Required materials and conditions: Evidence for direct dose comparisons, long-term/post-discontinuation follow-up, special populations/deficiency, interactions and applicability questions - Materials to obtain first: Evidence for direct dose comparisons, long-term/post-discontinuation follow-up, special populations/deficiency, interactions and applicability questions - Further research: Fix the population, exposure and duration of a separate extended question, and review suitable direct-comparison/long-term observational designs and applicability limitations. - Conditions for verification: Separate the selected TT from deficiency treatment, general safety/dose, long-term/personal application and other performance questions. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid establishing optimal supplementation dose, persistence of effects, personal safety or separate regulatory compliance from indirect short-term results. - Application exceptions: Do not impose every long-term/rare-event study as a requirement for the narrow TT question. Anti-doping/product regulatory judgments are separate from performance effects, and current regulations are not checked in this review. - Remaining uncertainty: The materials/verification still needed are as follows: Direct/long-term and applicability materials suited to a separately authorized extended question. This limitation is confined to the current inputs and the historical verification scope; it does not mean absence of studies, an effect of 0, established safety or an external access failure in this review. - Referenced methods: E08: M03 §3.2.1–3.2.4; details of dose, persistence and effect modification are locally designed / E09: M03 §3.2.4; locally defined boundaries for extensions / H08: M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; local application / H09: Chamgap's own interpretive boundaries. Informed by M19 principles; not execution of an official causality tool. Reason for application in this case: Needed to avoid establishing optimal supplementation dose, persistence of effects, personal safety or separate regulatory compliance from indirect short-term results. This is not new reading of complete method texts, execution of official RoB 2/GRADE/causality tools, or certification of minimum clinical criteria. - Related sources: S08, S09, S10 ### N40 · Were the original ?/null and historical calculation failures/drafts used as a new status? Verification status: Met Reading scope: Summary read: the actual locations/values in the specified retained stored summaries were read. External material types were not accessed, acquired or read in this review; access was not attempted. - Current findings: Preserve the original verdict ?, score null, Caution and unscored stage-zero downstream axes. The historical native calculator's null-handling error and pre-validation B suggestion are not an adopted new verdict. Document quality A and single-author self-checking are not used as clinical certification or a new criterion score. - Why unverified: Meets the criterion of separating historical verdicts/drafts/calculations from the current table's record status. No new clinical judgment/calculation was performed. - Reason for missing information: Separate historical files for the original calculation/draft and final revisions (not read in this review) - Required materials and conditions: Original axes/verdict, score, stage, calculation/verification limitations and draft revision history - Materials to obtain first: Original axes/verdict, score, stage, calculation/verification limitations and draft revision history - Further research: Compare the original verdict and calculation/draft/final history to distinguish the roles of criterion status and clinical grade. - Conditions for verification: Preserve ?/score null, Caution, unscored downstream axes and null direct results unchanged. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid reusing the original score/draft or document quality as the new table's proportion of criteria met or efficacy/safety judgment. - Application exceptions: The stage-zero calculation's null-handling error and initial B suggestion are historical records; no new calculation or grade change is made. Self-review assigning document quality A is not independent clinical certification. - Remaining uncertainty: The materials/verification still needed are as follows: Separate historical files for the original calculation/draft and final revisions (not read in this review). This limitation is confined to the current inputs and the historical verification scope; it does not mean absence of studies, an effect of 0, established safety or an external access failure in this review. - Referenced methods: C01: Question-clarification principles in M03 §3.1, §3.2.1–3.2.4; detailed separation rules are locally designed / C07: M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; design-specific adaptations are locally designed / C09: M04 §4.5, §4.6.3; limits of the current material conversion follow the user-defined scope and local design. Reason for application in this case: Needed to avoid reusing the original score/draft or document quality as the new table's proportion of criteria met or efficacy/safety judgment. This is not new reading of complete method texts, execution of official RoB 2/GRADE/causality tools, or certification of minimum clinical criteria. - Related sources: ### N41 · Are the previous publication/package and creation of this new table distinguished as events? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read: the actual locations/values in the specified retained stored summaries were read. External material types were not accessed, acquired or read in this review; access was not attempted. - Current findings: Preserve current ID 3119, canonical URLs and the previous 2026-09-16 publication/deployment records. The actual identity in the duplicate-key proposal remains incomplete. The original package SHA is not the binary hash of an individual original paper, and the old ZIP/separate receipts were not read in this review. This table has not been published on the website. - Why unverified: Current identity and historical metadata have been preserved, but full cross-checking of separate package/publication events and duplicate identity is incomplete. - Reason for missing information: Actual identity/package/publication receipts and duplicate-eligibility materials - Required materials and conditions: Current ID, canonical URL, duplicate proposal, package SHA and actual event materials for previous publication/deployment - Materials to obtain first: Current ID, canonical URL, duplicate proposal, package SHA and actual event materials for previous publication/deployment - Further research: Link the actual receipts for identity/assignment, package and publication events separately to cross-check timing and file scope. - Conditions for verification: Preserve the current 3119/canonical record, candidate_not_permanent identity gaps and historical publication, and indicate that the new table has not been deployed. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid inheriting previous site publication or a package hash as publication of the new table or verification of an original-paper binary. - Application exceptions: A duplicate candidate is not a confirmed permanent identity, and the original package SHA does not substitute for individual external-paper hashes. The old ZIP was not read in this review. - Remaining uncertainty: The materials/verification still needed are as follows: Actual identity/package/publication receipts and duplicate-eligibility materials. This limitation is confined to the current inputs and the historical verification scope; it does not mean absence of studies, an effect of 0, established safety or an external access failure in this review. - Referenced methods: C01: Question-clarification principles in M03 §3.1, §3.2.1–3.2.4; detailed separation rules are locally designed / C02: Distinction between studies and reports in M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2; cohort/outcome linkage is a local application / C03: Data collection/selection principles in M04 §4.5–4.6; separation of access from reading and the hyperlink contract are locally designed / C09: M04 §4.5, §4.6.3; limits of the current material conversion follow the user-defined scope and local design. Reason for application in this case: Needed to avoid inheriting previous site publication or a package hash as publication of the new table or verification of an original-paper binary. This is not new reading of complete method texts, execution of official RoB 2/GRADE/causality tools, or certification of minimum clinical criteria. - Related sources: ### N42 · Have the evidence cutoff date and this conversion review date been distinguished? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read: the actual locations/values in the specified retained stored summaries were read. External material types were not accessed, acquired or read in this review; access was not attempted. - Current findings: The original evidence cutoff and review date are 2026-09-16. The 2026-10-05 date of this review is the date of reviewing the retained stored summaries for conversion into a table. Separate search/access-log paths in the manuscript are preserved, but the actual logs were not read in this review, and no new search or verification of original texts/registrations/latest correction status was performed. - Why unverified: Original date/verification-scope records exist, but separate logs and the entire current literature/versions were not newly cross-checked. - Reason for missing information: Original search/access, registration/correction logs and an explicit update scope - Required materials and conditions: 2026-09-16 original search strategies/results, access/registration/correction logs and the current conversion review scope - Materials to obtain first: 2026-09-16 original search strategies/results, access/registration/correction logs and the current conversion review scope - Further research: In an authorized subsequent update, cross-check search sources, strategies, dates, results/access and versions, and record change events. - Conditions for verification: Separate the original evidence cutoff date 2026-09-16, this review date 2026-10-05 and the actual scope of stored-summary reading. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid retroactively treating historical search/access as a current exhaustive search or proof of absence of studies. - Application exceptions: The separate search/web_queries.json, native_search_log and access_log were not read in this review. Reference paths alone are not grounds for claiming that the actual logs were read. - Remaining uncertainty: The materials/verification still needed are as follows: Original search/access, registration/correction logs and an explicit update scope. This limitation is confined to the current inputs and the historical verification scope; it does not mean absence of studies, an effect of 0, established safety or an external access failure in this review. - Referenced methods: C09: M04 §4.5, §4.6.3; limits of the current material conversion follow the user-defined scope and local design / C08: M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; separation of statuses is locally designed / E06: M08 Table 8.2.a, M04 §4.6.3; local application. Reason for application in this case: Needed to avoid retroactively treating historical search/access as a current exhaustive search or proof of absence of studies. This is not new reading of complete method texts, execution of official RoB 2/GRADE/causality tools, or certification of minimum clinical criteria. - Related sources: ### N43 · Are actual stored-summary reading and historical external full-text access separated? Verification status: Met Reading scope: Summary read: the actual locations/values in the specified retained stored summaries were read. External material types were not accessed, acquired or read in this review; access was not attempted. - Current findings: Actual reading in this review comprises the complete KO of the currently stored manuscript, structured evidence/families, bibliography, assessment/gaps and historical metadata. All external material types had no access attempt and were not acquired or read in this review. Historical access to relevant sections of S04's original-paper reproduction, S05 HTML, visual checking of some S07 PDF pages, official guidance/excerpts, failures and null retained binary hashes are distinguished. The 5 method documents represent historical reuse of actual copies/SHA from 1585 and the principles recorded at that time. - Why unverified: Meets the criterion of recording the separation of current summaries/exact locations from historical external/method access. This does not mean that complete external original texts were verified in this review. - Reason for missing information: Actual acquisition/reading of external materials and method review within a separately authorized scope - Required materials and conditions: Original source bytes, exact pointers/literals, current/historical reading by material type and actual method copies/SHA - Materials to obtain first: Original source bytes, exact pointers/literals, current/historical reading by material type and actual method copies/SHA - Further research: Cross-check input bytes, original locations, actual actions by material type and method copies to verify the scope of reading labels. - Conditions for verification: Link only the actual current reading of the stored source summary, and leave all external material types as access not attempted, not acquired and not read in the current review. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid labeling historical abstracts, full-text copies, visual checking of some PDF pages and search excerpts/failures as full-text reading in this review. - Application exceptions: Distinguish the relevant sections of S04's original-paper reproduction from search snippets of related papers. full_text_stored=false/hash null is separate from historical HTML access records. Method copies do not mean new full-text reading. - Remaining uncertainty: The materials/verification still needed are as follows: Actual acquisition/reading of external materials and method review within a separately authorized scope. This limitation is confined to the current inputs and the historical verification scope; it does not mean absence of studies, an effect of 0, established safety or an external access failure in this review. - Referenced methods: C03: Data collection/selection principles in M04 §4.5–4.6; separation of access from reading and the hyperlink contract are locally designed / C09: M04 §4.5, §4.6.3; limits of the current material conversion follow the user-defined scope and local design. Reason for application in this case: Needed to avoid labeling historical abstracts, full-text copies, visual checking of some PDF pages and search excerpts/failures as full-text reading in this review. This is not new reading of complete method texts, execution of official RoB 2/GRADE/causality tools, or certification of minimum clinical criteria. - Related sources: S01, S02, S03, S04, S05, S06, S07, S08, S09, S10, S11 ## Evidence and sources ### S01 Webster (1998). Physiological and performance responses to supplementation with thiamin and pantothenic acid derivatives [Source](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9650731/) Materials actually read: Summary read: only the relevant actual locations in the currently stored manuscript were read. External material types were not read in this review. Findings recorded in the summary: Record at retention: an allithiamin+pantothenic-acid-related combination in highly trained cyclists. After 50 km, the 2,000 m TT values were placebo 178.2(8.4) seconds/combination 170.7(10.2) seconds, P=0.58, reported participating n=6; central-tendency/parenthetical dispersion, paired CI/analysis flow are unverified. The historical −7.5 seconds of descriptive arithmetic is not an effect of thiamine alone. Record level: The historical extraction/access in the 2026-09-16 stored source summary is converted into the current presentation. This is not new external verification, clinical calculation or reassessment. Independent replication: False | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Original PubMed abstract/bibliographic record | Unverified (no external lookup in this review) | Access not attempted | Not read | Separate historical material types/partial access from current summary reading. | | Publisher abstract/original-text page | Unverified (no external lookup in this review) | Access not attempted | Not read | Separate historical material types/partial access from current summary reading. | | Publisher article PDF (direct URL unverified) | Unverified (no external lookup in this review) | Access not attempted | Not read | Separate historical material types/partial access from current summary reading. | ### S02 Webster et al. (1997). The effect of a thiamin derivative on exercise performance [Source](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s004210050198) Materials actually read: Summary read: only the relevant actual locations in the currently stored manuscript were read. External material types were not read in this review. Findings recorded in the summary: Record at retention: TTFD 1 g/day, 4 days per period and a 10-day washout; route/training qualifications are unverified. In the day 4, 2,000 m TT, placebo was 204.5(5.5) seconds/TTFD 200.9(4.3) seconds, P=0.61, reported participating n=14. It is distinguished from the day 3 exhaustion test, and central-tendency/dispersion types and paired CI/analysis flow remain unverified. Record level: The historical extraction/access in the 2026-09-16 stored source summary is converted into the current presentation. This is not new external verification, clinical calculation or reassessment. Independent replication: False | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Publisher abstract/original-text page | Unverified (no external lookup in this review) | Access not attempted | Not read | Separate historical material types/partial access from current summary reading. | | Original PubMed abstract/bibliographic record | Unverified (no external lookup in this review) | Access not attempted | Not read | Separate historical material types/partial access from current summary reading. | | Publisher article PDF (direct URL unverified) | Unverified (no external lookup in this review) | Access not attempted | Not read | Separate historical material types/partial access from current summary reading. | ### S03 Suzuki and Itokawa (1996). Effects of thiamine supplementation on exercise-induced fatigue [Source](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02080935) Materials actually read: Summary read: only the relevant actual locations in the currently stored manuscript were read. External material types were not read in this review. Findings recorded in the summary: Record at retention: the keywords are fursultiamine/TTFD, and the full-text product/route are unverified. These are fatigue/metabolic data for 16 male athlete volunteers, 100 mg/day for 3 days. The authors' classification using blood levels of 40 ng/mL is not a universal diagnostic criterion for deficiency, and the favorable fatigue/metabolic description is not a direct fixed-distance TT effect. Record level: The historical extraction/access in the 2026-09-16 stored source summary is converted into the current presentation. This is not new external verification, clinical calculation or reassessment. Independent replication: False | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Publisher's original abstract/keywords and original-text page | Unverified (no external lookup in this review) | Access not attempted | Not read | Separate historical material types/partial access from current summary reading. | | Article full text/PDF (separate direct URL unverified) | Unverified (no external lookup in this review) | Access not attempted | Not read | Separate historical material types/partial access from current summary reading. | ### S04 Choi et al. (2013). The effects of endurance training and thiamine supplementation on anti-fatigue during exercise [Source](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270656791_The_effects_of_endurance_training_and_thiamine_supplementation_on_anti-fatigue_during_exercise) Materials actually read: Summary read: only the relevant actual locations in the currently stored manuscript were read. External material types were not read in this review. Findings recorded in the summary: Record at retention: crossover data for oral TTFD, placebo and training in 9 women with athletic/Taekwondo experience. Exercise at 70% VO2max and 50 rpm for a fixed 60 minutes is not TT completion time. The ambiguity in total/per-administration dose in the record of 10 mg/kg, three administrations, 30 minutes after meals/150 mL water and 4 weeks is not resolved by conversion. Relevant sections of the original-paper reproduction on ResearchGate are distinguished from snippets of related papers and PMC/old-PDF access limitations. Record level: The historical extraction/access in the 2026-09-16 stored source summary is converted into the current presentation. This is not new external verification, clinical calculation or reassessment. Independent replication: False | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | ResearchGate original-paper reproduction/copy page and relevant sections | Unverified (no external lookup in this review) | Access not attempted | Not read | Separate historical material types/partial access from current summary reading. | | PMC original-paper HTML | Unverified (no external lookup in this review) | Access not attempted | Not read | Separate historical material types/partial access from current summary reading. | | Full article in a historical PDF repository | Unverified (no external lookup in this review) | Access not attempted | Not read | Separate historical material types/partial access from current summary reading. | ### S05 Lee et al. (2023). A functional evaluation of anti-fatigue and exercise performance improvement following vitamin B complex supplementation in healthy humans, a randomized double-blind trial [Source](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10542023/) Materials actually read: Summary read: only the relevant actual locations in the currently stored manuscript were read. External material types were not read in this review. Findings recorded in the summary: Record at retention: non-athlete crossover data for the Ex PLUS combination, with 32 unique participants and initial sequences of 16/16. There were 28 days per period and a 14-day washout; time to exhaustion was 12.56±SD 1.9 minutes/15.82±SD 1.91 minutes, P<0.0001, with longer being better. This is not relabeled as a TT of B1 alone or as 64 people. Paired CI, period/carryover effects and AE counts by group/period are unverified; company/public funding, supply/blinding assistance and the declaration are preserved together. Record level: The historical extraction/access in the 2026-09-16 stored source summary is converted into the current presentation. This is not new external verification, clinical calculation or reassessment. Independent replication: False | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | PMC original-paper HTML | Unverified (no external lookup in this review) | Access not attempted | Not read | Separate historical material types/partial access from current summary reading. | | Relevant sections of original results in Figure 4/Table 3 | Unverified (no external lookup in this review) | Access not attempted | Not read | Separate historical material types/partial access from current summary reading. | | Separate SAP/complete period-specific results (existence/URL unverified) | Unverified (no external lookup in this review) | Access not attempted | Not read | Separate historical material types/partial access from current summary reading. | ### S06 Bautista-Hernández et al. (2008). Effect of Thiamine Pyrophosphate on Levels of Serum Lactate, Maximum Oxygen Consumption and Heart Rate in Athletes Performing Aerobic Activity [Source](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/147323000803600608) Materials actually read: Summary read: only the relevant actual locations in the currently stored manuscript were read. External material types were not read in this review. Findings recorded in the summary: Record at retention: data for 27 reported male athlete participants receiving TPP 1 mg/kg. Administration schedule/route and analysis flow are unverified, and route is not inferred from the 0.9% saline control. Favorable lactate, VO2max and heart-rate descriptions are not a fixed-distance TT effect of oral ordinary thiamine. Record level: The historical extraction/access in the 2026-09-16 stored source summary is converted into the current presentation. This is not new external verification, clinical calculation or reassessment. Independent replication: False | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Publisher's original abstract/references and original-text page | Unverified (no external lookup in this review) | Access not attempted | Not read | Separate historical material types/partial access from current summary reading. | | Article PDF (direct URL unverified) | Unverified (no external lookup in this review) | Access not attempted | Not read | Separate historical material types/partial access from current summary reading. | ### S07 Masuda et al. (2015). Effect of thiamin (vitamin B1) on carbohydrate metabolism at rest and during exercise [Source](https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jpfsm/4/4/4_337/_article) Materials actually read: Summary read: only the relevant actual locations in the currently stored manuscript were read. External material types were not read in this review. Findings recorded in the summary: Record at retention: a review of thiamine and carbohydrate metabolism, with pp.337–341 and visual checking of some pages, 339/341, recorded historically. Simple citation reuse under B1 does not erase differences in original derivatives, combinations/endpoints. The original study_id is null, and it is not counted as a new trial, person or direct replication. Record level: The historical extraction/access in the 2026-09-16 stored source summary is converted into the current presentation. This is not new external verification, clinical calculation or reassessment. Independent replication: False | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Review full-text HTML | Unverified (no external lookup in this review) | Access not attempted | Not read | Separate historical material types/partial access from current summary reading. | | Review article PDF | Unverified (no external lookup in this review) | Access not attempted | Not read | Separate historical material types/partial access from current summary reading. | ### S08 NIH Office of Dietary Supplements. Thiamin: Health Professional Fact Sheet [Source](https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Thiamin-HealthProfessional/) Materials actually read: Summary read: only the relevant actual locations in the currently stored manuscript were read. External material types were not read in this review. Findings recorded in the summary: Record at retention: historical risk, interaction and at-risk-population descriptions in NIH official guidance. Absence of an established UL does not mean unlimited high-dose safety or personal dosing instructions, nor 0 events per group in an eligible trial. Sections on efficacy for other diseases are not reassessed in this performance question. Record level: The historical extraction/access in the 2026-09-16 stored source summary is converted into the current presentation. This is not new external verification, clinical calculation or reassessment. Independent replication: False | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Full NIH ODS official health-professional webpage | Unverified (no external lookup in this review) | Access not attempted | Not read | Separate historical material types/partial access from current summary reading. | ### S09 Flamingo Pharma UK Ltd. Thiamine Hydrochloride 100 mg Tablets: Summary of Product Characteristics [Source](https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/product/13528/smpc) Materials actually read: Summary read: only the relevant actual locations in the currently stored manuscript were read. External material types were not read in this review. Findings recorded in the summary: Record at retention: the SmPC for Flamingo Pharma UK's Thiamine HCl 100 mg tablets. Preserve the §4.2–4.8/7–10, 2025-02-18 text-revision and PL43461/0038 records and product-specific GI/hypersensitivity context. This is not an athlete trial product/incidence, and injection, children/pregnancy/excipient precautions are not extended to all oral thiamine. Record level: The historical extraction/access in the 2026-09-16 stored source summary is converted into the current presentation. This is not new external verification, clinical calculation or reassessment. Independent replication: False | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | UK official SmPC HTML for the relevant product | Unverified (no external lookup in this review) | Access not attempted | Not read | Separate historical material types/partial access from current summary reading. | ### S10 NICE CG32. Nutrition support for adults [Source](https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg32/chapter/recommendations) Materials actually read: Summary read: only the relevant actual locations in the currently stored manuscript were read. External material types were not read in this review. Findings recorded in the summary: Record at retention: verification of the context of high-risk refeeding requiring skilled professionals solely from an official search excerpt of CG32 recommendation 1.4. Preserve the two direct-URL failures and the absence of dosing-regimen extraction/recommendation. This is not promoted to an access failure/full-text reading in this review or to athlete dosing instructions. Record level: The historical extraction/access in the 2026-09-16 stored source summary is converted into the current presentation. This is not new external verification, clinical calculation or reassessment. Independent replication: False | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Full NICE CG32 official recommendation HTML | Unverified (no external lookup in this review) | Access not attempted | Not read | Separate historical material types/partial access from current summary reading. | | Historical official search excerpt (separate URL unverified) | Unverified (no external lookup in this review) | Access not attempted | Not read | Separate historical material types/partial access from current summary reading. | ### S11 ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05586295 [Source](https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05586295) Materials actually read: Summary read: only the relevant actual locations in the currently stored manuscript were read. External material types were not read in this review. Findings recorded in the summary: Record at retention: NCT05586295's historical 11-line shell record. The number and S05's 09/12/2022 are preserved, but first submission/study start, prospective registration and endpoint hierarchy/version history are unverified. The registration link for the same F05 is not a new result or independent trial. Record level: The historical extraction/access in the 2026-09-16 stored source summary is converted into the current presentation. This is not new external verification, clinical calculation or reassessment. Independent replication: False | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Complete official registry record | Unverified (no external lookup in this review) | Access not attempted | Not read | Separate historical material types/partial access from current summary reading. | | Official registry change history/initial version (content unverified) | Unverified (no external lookup in this review) | Access not attempted | Not read | Separate historical material types/partial access from current summary reading. | ## 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. · Historical reuse of actual method HTML copies/SHA from 1585 and the principles recorded at that time. This is not new reading of complete method texts or official implementation/certification. - 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. · Historical reuse of actual method HTML copies/SHA from 1585 and the principles recorded at that time. This is not new reading of complete method texts or official implementation/certification. - 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. · Historical reuse of actual method HTML copies/SHA from 1585 and the principles recorded at that time. This is not new reading of complete method texts or official implementation/certification. - 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. · Historical reuse of actual method HTML copies/SHA from 1585 and the principles recorded at that time. This is not new reading of complete method texts or official implementation/certification. - 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. · Historical reuse of actual method HTML copies/SHA from 1585 and the principles recorded at that time. This is not new reading of complete method texts or official implementation/certification. ## What the statuses mean - Met: Meeting narrow record criteria, such as identity, exclusion/attribution, original verdicts, and current versus historical reading. This is not verification of clinical efficacy/safety or complete external texts. - Partly verified: Some actual retained reports exist, but verification of original methods, denominators/dispersion, implementation, plans/access remains outstanding. - Unverified: The required values/materials cannot be established from the current inputs and the historical verification scope. Distinguish unverified information in the materials from actual review still outstanding. - Not reported: Limited to non-reporting in specific materials/sections actually read; not extended to complete external texts that have not been read. - Conflicting information: Used only when incompatible records of the same fact have actually been verified. S04's dose ambiguity and differences between trials/formulations/endpoints are not turned into newly confirmed conflicts. - Inaccessible: Used only when actual external access has failed in this review. External access was not attempted and external materials were not read in this review; historical failures are not inherited. - Review incomplete: Means external materials have not been cross-checked in this review or actual work remains outstanding. Unverified information in materials already reviewed within the limited scope is not labeled as failure of the entire review. - Not applicable: Not applicable to establishing long-term outcomes/optimal dose, personal application or regulatory compliance outside the narrow TT question. This is not certification of absence of studies, no effect or safety for those questions. ## Change history 2026-11-06 · Public page/materials 1.0. The public-facing display and data were created from the existing 43 items. No new clinical search, change in verification status or scoring was performed. ## Material-specific source addresses - [S01-M1 · Original PubMed abstract/bibliographic record](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9650731/) - [S01-M2 · Publisher abstract/original-text page](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s004210050364) - S01-M3 · Publisher article PDF (direct URL unverified): Material URL unverified; external material unread. - [S02-M1 · Publisher abstract/original-text page](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s004210050198) - [S02-M2 · Original PubMed abstract/bibliographic record](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9202948/) - S02-M3 · Publisher article PDF (direct URL unverified): Material URL unverified; external material unread. - [S03-M1 · Publisher's original abstract/keywords and original-text page](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02080935) - S03-M2 · Article full text/PDF (separate direct URL unverified): Material URL unverified; external material unread. - [S04-M1 · ResearchGate original-paper reproduction/copy page and relevant sections](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270656791_The_effects_of_endurance_training_and_thiamine_supplementation_on_anti-fatigue_during_exercise) - [S04-M2 · PMC original-paper HTML](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4241913/) - [S04-M3 · Full article in a historical PDF repository](https://www.e-sciencecentral.org/upload/jenb/pdf/jenb-17-4-189.pdf) - [S05-M1 · PMC original-paper HTML](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10542023/) - [S05-M2 · Relevant sections of original results in Figure 4/Table 3](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10542023/) - S05-M3 · Separate SAP/complete period-specific results (existence/URL unverified): Material URL unverified; external material unread. - [S06-M1 · Publisher's original abstract/references and original-text page](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/147323000803600608) - S06-M2 · Article PDF (direct URL unverified): Material URL unverified; external material unread. - [S07-M1 · Review full-text HTML](https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jpfsm/4/4/4_337/_article) - [S07-M2 · Review article PDF](https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jpfsm/4/4/4_337/_pdf/-char/en) - [S08-M1 · Full NIH ODS official health-professional webpage](https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Thiamin-HealthProfessional/) - [S09-M1 · UK official SmPC HTML for the relevant product](https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/product/13528/smpc) - [S10-M1 · Full NICE CG32 official recommendation HTML](https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg32/chapter/recommendations) - S10-M2 · Historical official search excerpt (separate URL unverified): Material URL unverified; external material unread. - [S11-M1 · Complete official registry record](https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05586295) - [S11-M2 · Official registry change history/initial version (content unverified)](https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05586295)