Riboflavin (vitamin B2) × 161.3-km race finishing time in experienced adult ultramarathon runners

Required evidence, verification status and materials actually read
Item	AVerification status	BReading scope	CReview item	DCurrent findings	EWhy unverified	FRequired materials and conditions	GFurther research
1	Met	Full text not readStored summary read	N01 · Claim and independent scopeWhich population, intervention, distance and time comparison does this table address?Required	The original claim concerns 161.3 km race finishing time in experienced adult ultramarathon runners. The table presents a one-race comparison of oral single-ingredient B2 versus a color-matched placebo. subclaims=[]; pain, 400 m recovery, CK, vitamin status and laboratory time trials are separate outcomes. S01	The identity and inclusion/exclusion boundaries of the independent claim have been linked to the current ID and exact original wording. This condition being met does not establish a reduction in finishing time.	Linkage of the current claim, population, formulation/route, comparator and endpoint to the excluded endpoints on the same page	In subsequent research, prespecify the finishing-time question for the same distance separately from the recovery question.
2	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N02 · Ingredient and product identityAre the study's single-ingredient riboflavin and exact product specifications verified?Required	The study reports oral capsules containing riboflavin as the single active nutrient. Documentation of the exact salt, product batch and complete excipients has not been verified. Results for B-vitamin combinations or other formulations are not treated as the same intervention. S01	The molecule, single active nutrient and route are preserved, but the full product specifications have not been verified.	Documentation of the trial capsule's molecule/salt, batch, active amount, complete excipients and quality	Disclose batch specifications and analytical data for the trial product and directly compare interventions with the same specifications.
3	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N03 · Actual population and selectionTo what extent do the actual runners match the population in the original claim?Required	The actual data concern experienced adult ultramarathon participants in the 2016 Western States Endurance Run. Finishing time is restricted to 32 study completers with complete data. Exact age eligibility limits and renal/hepatic-disease and pregnancy subgroups are unverified. S01	The race setting, experienced adults and actual time-analysis population have been linked, but detailed selection criteria and special-population coverage have not been verified.	2016 WSER inclusion/exclusion criteria, age range, experience, baseline racing ability and special-population data	Subsequent trials should specify racing experience and selection criteria and predefine population-specific applicability limits.
4	Unverified	Full text not readStored summary read	N04 · Baseline B2 and dietIs it verified whether this is correction of deficiency or additional supplementation on top of adequate intake?Required	Although presented as a supplementation question, the population has not been verified as deficient or adequate through measurements of baseline B2 markers, deficiency thresholds and total dietary intake. Unverified status is not used as confirmation of nondeficiency. S01	The necessary baseline measurement/intake records could not be verified within the currently retained scope.	Baseline B2 markers/deficiency thresholds, total dietary B2, concurrent supplements and baseline data by group	Measure baseline B2, diet and concurrent supplementation, and plan prespecified effect-modification analyses by deficiency status.
5	Met	Full text not readStored summary read	N05 · Planned dose and timingAre the two administrations in one race distinguished from long-term daily dosing?Required	The plan is to administer oral B2 100 mg 0.5–1 hour before the start and 100 mg at 90 km. The planned total in one 161.3 km race is 200 mg. This is not a trial of long-term daily use of 200 mg or 400 mg. S01	The planned route, amount and timing in the actual manuscript have been linked to correction QA02. This is distinct from the N06 question of whether everyone actually absorbed the planned amount.	Administration specifications, oral route, timing before the start/at 90 km, and planned total amount	Fix the timing within the same race, and design studies directly comparing administration timing/doses as separate questions.
6	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N06 · Actual intake and deviationsDid everyone actually receive the planned second dose?Required	Omission of the second dose and vomiting were reported, and analgesic use also occurred. The current records cannot verify that every runner fully received or absorbed the two planned capsules. S01	The occurrence of deviations is preserved, but individual actual administered amounts and the scope of their analytical handling could not be verified.	Individual administration/omission, vomiting, time available for absorption, adherence and analytical-handling records	Record administration/deviations for each individual and analyze prespecified effects of assignment separately from effects of adherence.
7	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N07 · Placebo and active amountAre powder mass and active amount distinguished for the color-matched placebo?Required	The placebo contains 95 mg maltodextrin and 5 mg of 10% beta-carotene powder per capsule. The retained nominal calculation is 0.5 mg/capsule of active beta-carotene, not an active amount of 5 mg. Race diet and usual care are not standardized. S01	The reported ingredients and historical nominal calculation were verified, but measured batch content and physiological equivalence/inertness comparisons were not.	Placebo batch/ingredients, maltodextrin and beta-carotene powder specifications, and assessment of physiological effects	Disclose the control capsule's ingredients/color and measured content, and assess nonspecific differences from the intervention.
8	Conflicting information	Full text not readStored summary read	N08 · Race care and conflicting medication dataAre the diet, usual-care and analgesic differences actually internally consistent?Required	Race diet and usual care were not standardized. For medication use during the race in the placebo group, the text records 6 participants, Table 1 records 36% of 14 participants, and the sum across medication types is 5 participants. QA04 leaves these unreconciled and preserves reconciled count=null. S01	The original text, table and total referring to the same medication-user count could not be verified as consistent. This is an internal conflict in the source data, not a difference between analytical estimates.	Diet/race care in both groups, medication types/participant counts, original table/text and corrections, and analytical handling	Cross-check individual concomitant-use data against the original table, and preplan recording/handling of common care and rescue treatment.
9	Met	Full text not readStored summary read	N09 · Allocation designHas the randomized title been distinguished from actual alternating allocation?Required	Actual allocation alternated by order of arrival at registration; it was not a random sequence. This differs from the randomized wording in the S04 conference title; QA03 records randomized=false according to the detailed Methods of the original journal article. S01 S04	The actual design identity was attributed to the retained detailed methods/corrections. Meeting the allocation-identity condition does not mean confounding was controlled or that this was a confirmatory RCT.	Allocation by registration-arrival order, sequence generation, baseline balance and related report identities	Subsequent comparisons should disclose the random sequence and its actual implementation, and assess balance in baseline racing ability.
10	Unverified	Full text not readStored summary read	N10 · Allocation concealmentWas it impossible to predict or change the allocation sequence?Required	Alternating allocation by registration-arrival order is predictable. Whether allocation concealment was effectively implemented has not been verified in the current records. S01	The allocation procedure is known, but the information needed to assess concealment implementation/effectiveness is unverified.	Allocation personnel/concealment implementation, registration process, any breaches and baseline characteristics	Separate responsibility for sequence generation, storage and implementation from registration procedures, including an audit of the allocation process.
11	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N11 · Maintenance of blindingAre participant/onsite-researcher blinding and noticing urine color distinguished?Required	Blinding of participants and onsite researchers was reported. Urine color was noticed by 3 participants in the B2 group and 1 in the placebo group, so fully maintained blinding cannot be verified. The actual time-recording assessors and checks of maintained blinding are also unverified. S01	The blinding report and cases of awareness were verified, but sufficient information on actual maintenance and the assessment stage is lacking.	Blinding implementation, timing of noticing urine color, allocation guesses, assessors and checks of maintained blinding	Collect allocation guesses and the timing of awareness, and specify blinding of those recording race times.
12	Met	Full text not readStored summary read	N12 · Starting, finishing and analysis denominatorsWhat denominators do 44 participants, 37 participants and 32 participants each represent?Required	Allocation/starting counts were 22 participants in the B2 group and 22 participants in the placebo group; finishing counts were 20 participants and 17 participants; and complete-data counts in Table 1 were 18 participants and 14 participants. The actual denominator for the finishing-time means is 32 participants, not 44 participants or 37 participants. S01	The group-specific stages and denominators for the Table 1 means are clearly linked. They have not been renamed randomized n.	Group-specific allocation/starting, finishing and data-completeness flow, and the identity of the Table 1 analysis	Disclose the full participant flow and the actual analysis denominator for each outcome using consistent identifiers.
13	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N13 · Nonfinishing and missing dataHow were nonfinishing and incomplete data after finishing handled?Required	The retained records distinguish 7 nonfinishers among 44 starters from 5 finishers with incomplete data. Historical arithmetic gives group-specific nonfinisher counts of 2 participants/5 participants and incomplete-data counts after finishing of 2 participants/3 participants. These subtraction records are not new calculations, and the comparison of 32 participants does not recover the effect in all 44 assigned participants. S01	Loss stages and retained group-specific counts have been linked, but the reasons, handling and estimation of the effect of interest in all starters could not be verified.	Individual reasons for nonfinishing/missing data, the analysis plan for the effect in all assigned participants, and raw data	Define the prespecified effect of interest including nonfinishers and missing-data sensitivity analyses, and report the full data flow.
14	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N14 · Time endpoint and recordingFor what distance, at what time point and with what device was time measured?Required	The outcome is finishing time (in hours) at completion of one 161.3 km ultramarathon race. It is the value for study completers in Table 1, not a standardized laboratory time trial or a 400 m recovery run. Timing-device and recording/adjudication details are unverified. S01	The endpoint, distance, unit and completion time point were verified, but actual recording/verification procedures are unverified within the retained scope.	Official race-completion time, timing device/adjudication, course conditions, record verification and Table 1 location	Disclose official timing records and course/adjudication procedures, and audit measurement errors/differences.
15	Unverified	Full text not readStored summary read	N15 · Finishing-time analysis hierarchyWas finishing time a prespecified primary efficacy endpoint?Required	The study focuses on pain and recovery, and finishing time appears in a characteristics table. A registration/planned hierarchy establishing finishing time as a prespecified primary efficacy endpoint could not be verified. S01	The fact that an outcome was reported does not by itself establish a prespecified primary (1st) endpoint or confirmatory analysis.	Registration/protocol/SAP, endpoint/time-point hierarchy, the table's purpose and reasons for changes	Fix the primary/supporting role of finishing time, testing hierarchy and handling of multiple comparisons before the race.
16	Met	Full text not readStored summary read	N16 · Means, SD and unitsAre the Table 1 means and dispersion measures attributed to the same population/units?Required	In Table 1, the 18 B2 participants have 27.26 ± 2.36 hours and the 14 placebo participants have 27.08 ± 2.88 hours, expressed as mean±SD. This SD is not a between-group CI or SE. S01	The original means, dispersion notation and group-specific denominators were accurately linked to the retained results/inputs. Meeting the numerical-attribution condition is separate from establishing causal efficacy.	Group-specific complete-data n, mean time, SD notation, and original table/units	Disclose the dispersion definition for each outcome together with precise numerical values/denominators.
17	Met	Full text not readStored summary read	N17 · Nonsignificance and interpretation limitsHas nonsignificance for time been kept from being converted into an effect of 0 or equivalence?Required	The retained original table/manuscript states that a significant between-group difference in finishing time was not identified. Alternating allocation and selected-finisher analysis prevent this from establishing an effect of 0, equivalence or exclusion of important time benefit. S01	The nonsignificance statement and its interpretation limits were linked to the same time endpoint and preserved. This condition being met does not establish no effect.	The original table's no-difference statement, coherent between-group estimates/intervals and a validated important-difference criterion	Prespecify coherent between-group intervals and important-difference criteria to provide interpretation beyond significance.
18	Unverified	Full text not readStored summary read	N18 · Original CI and exact PAre author-reported between-group CI, exact P and adjusted estimates available?Required	Author-reported finishing-time CI, exact P and adjusted causal effect are null in the retained stored summary. Historical t-reconstruction values are recorded separately and do not fill these original values. S01	The required originally reported estimates/tests and adjusted values could not be verified and cannot be replaced with existing descriptive calculations.	CI for the original time outcome, exact test P, adjusted model/estimand and results table	Disclose the original between-group CI/P and model/denominator for the prespecified effect of interest on finishing time.
19	Met	Full text not readStored summary read	N19 · Historical mean difference and directionAre the sign and descriptive meaning of the retained mean difference preserved?Required	The retained mean difference is B2−placebo +0.18 hours (+10.8 minutes); a positive value is descriptively in the slower direction. The original retained values are 0.18000000000000327 hours and 10.800000000000196 minutes. This is arithmetic on selected-sample means, not a new estimate of causal harm or significant delay. S01	The inputs, direction and original values of the retained calculation were accurately distinguished from the rounded reader-facing expression. No new calculation was performed in this work.	Historical arithmetic inputs, B2−placebo direction, original mean-difference values/limits and calculation provenance	Subsequent research should report the prespecified direction and between-group estimates/intervals for the overall effect of interest.
20	Met	Full text not readStored summary read	N20 · Historical pooled intervalCan the assumptions of the equal-variance t-reconstructed interval be verified?Supplementary	The historical pooled-variance unpaired t model is a descriptive model for the selected sample. The retained 95% CI is [−1.7108254419152404, 2.0708254419152468] hours, P = 0.8471597784689339, SE = 0.925843873613083 hours, and df = 30. Equal variance is an explicit calculation assumption, not a verified author-used t subtype. It does not remedy missingness/confounding. S01	The historical calculation's model, values and assumptions were linked separately from the unverified original CI. This meets a calculation-preservation condition, not a causal-precision condition.	Original retained pooled-calculation values, inputs, assumptions, selected sample and distinction from original reporting	Disclose participant-level data and a prespecified model to examine direct estimation that accounts for selection/nonrandomization limitations.
21	Met	Full text not readStored summary read	N21 · Historical Welch sensitivity analysisWere the unequal-variance sensitivity results also preserved as a separate model?Supplementary	The historical Welch unpaired t sensitivity analysis uses an unequal-variance model. The retained 95% CI is [−1.7761840334977923, 2.136184033497799] hours, P = 0.8512055048234594, SE = 0.9496732938644559 hours, and df = 24.925799135526574. These results use assumptions different from pooled analysis; they are neither a source-data conflict nor author CI. S01	Both models were preserved and attributed to their respective assumptions; the conclusion was not changed through new recalculation/model selection.	Retained Welch values, assumptions, inputs, differences from pooled results and verification status of the original interval	Prespecify variance assumptions and sensitivity analyses for missingness/confounding, and report model-specific results transparently.
22	Unverified	Full text not readStored summary read	N22 · Important difference and equivalenceIs there a basis for deciding how much faster a time constitutes important benefit?Required	A validated important difference (MCID) for the same race/runners is null. The retained record has equivalence_demonstrated=false, and reconstructed intervals allow both faster and slower times. NNT is null because this continuous-time/selected descriptive comparison has no eligible binary-risk/time estimate. S01	The relationship between an important difference and a coherent original interval could not be verified, so exclusion of important benefit or equivalence cannot be claimed.	Justified important-difference and equivalence thresholds for the same race/population, and appropriate original estimation intervals	Justify an important difference in the runner/race context and prespecify a precision/equivalence design incorporating it.
23	Unverified	Full text not readStored summary read	N23 · Confounding and adjusted effect of interestIs a comparative effect accounting for baseline racing ability and selection verified?Required	Adjustment for baseline racing ability on an equivalent course and adjusted causal estimation have not been verified. The mean difference from predictable alternating allocation and selected-completer analysis cannot be regarded as estimating the intervention effect in all starters. S01	Baseline balance/adjustment and full-analysis data needed for the causal effect of interest could not be verified.	Baseline racing ability, experience on the same course, nutritional/care covariates and prespecified adjustment/analysis of all participants	Measure racing ability before allocation and prespecify the effect of interest and handling of covariates/losses.
24	Unverified	Full text not readStored summary read	N24 · Acquisition of registration and plansHave the official registration, protocol and SAP been compared with the original report?Required	S01 registration_id is null; registration was not reported in the original at the time, and the external record was recorded as unverified. Ethics approval or the existence of an article is not reading the full registration, protocol or SAP. Access to the relevant external materials was not attempted in this work; they were not acquired or read. S01	Full texts needed to actually compare the prospective plan with the original results were not acquired/read in this work. This differs from absence of registration or confirmed selective reporting.	Full original registration/protocol/SAP, versions/dates and endpoint/analysis comparisons	Disclose original plans and change histories, and compare outcome-specific plan adherence/reasons for changes.
25	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N25 · Conference report and same familyAre the conference title and original journal article being counted as independent replications?Required	The HTML/PDF/index versions of the S01 original article are the same report. S04 is a probable conference companion on the same investigators/intervention topic, but full-text/exact-identity comparison is incomplete. It is not counted as a separate cohort or independent replication; randomized in the conference title differs from the alternating allocation in S01. S01 S04	The probable family link and exclusion of duplicate counting were verified, but the exact identity of the full conference text is unverified.	S01/S04 original reports, full conference text, cohort/time-point/participant linkage and design wording	Link participants, registrations and time points across related reports, and disclose a map of unique families and outcome locations.
26	Met	Full text not readStored summary read	N26 · Recovery and other favorable outcomesAre positive signals for pain/400 m recovery being substituted as time evidence?Required	Favorable signals for some pain and 400 m recovery results from the same study are preserved. These outcomes differ from finishing time for the 161.3 km race and do not replace the nonsignificant finishing-time result. CK and vitamin status are also separate endpoints. S01	Favorable adjacent outcomes and the boundary of the selected time outcome were preserved together according to the manuscript. No new numerical values or intervals for positive signals were created.	Endpoint-specific results, time points, tests/hierarchy and finishing-time separation records from the same study	Prespecify race performance and post-race recovery separately, and report endpoint-specific estimates/intervals and multiple comparisons.
27	Met	Full text not readStored summary read	N27 · Ex PLUS and combination productDoes time to exhaustion with a combination product in nonathletes answer the single-ingredient B2 race-time question?Supplementary	S02 Ex PLUS is a combination of multiple vitamins, minerals, taurine and inositol. It involved 32 healthy nonathletes, a 28-day intervention and a 14-day washout, testing time to exhaustion at 85% VO2max. Do not combine it as field-race finishing-time evidence for single-ingredient B2. S02	The actual differences in ingredients, population, duration and endpoint in the current materials have been linked, allowing the exclusion role to be explained. This status does not confirm Ex PLUS or B2 efficacy.	S02 ingredient table, population, exposure/washout, actual performance test and registration/original results	Design a direct comparison in the same ultramarathon population differing only in single-ingredient B2.
28	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N28 · 1984 swimming study and unresolved statusHave the swimming article's eligibility and numerical values been verified?Supplementary	S05 is a candidate identified through the title and bibliography of a 1984 study of B2 supplementation, nutritional status and performance in elite swimmers. Incomplete access to the original/DOI resolution at the time prevented verification of age, exact endpoint, dose, design and effect/CI. The external original remains unread in the current work. S05	Bibliographic identity is preserved, but the eligibility and precise numerical values of the performance data are unverified.	Full original 1984 article, age/ingredient/dose, design, performance test, denominators and effect/intervals	In a subsequent review that acquires the original, verify the actual sport, test and population, and separate evidence according to directness.
29	Met	Full text not readStored summary read	N29 · 1992 population correctionHave the Winters1992 population and the swimming study been separated?Supplementary	The title of S06 Winters1992 concerns B2 requirements/exercise adaptation in older women. QA01 separated it from the 1984 elite-swimming candidate. Access at the time was limited to official-index search metadata; no direct performance numbers were imported. S06 S05	The retained population/question correction and the boundary preventing numerical transfer were linked. Verification of the original article's results was not claimed.	S06 bibliography, original article/abstract, exercise-adaptation/nutrient-requirement endpoints and QA01 correction	Subsequent original-source review should first verify each population, endpoint and ingredient, then extract by independent question.
30	Met	Full text not readStored summary read	N30 · Direction of exercise→B2 statusIs post-exercise B2 status in adult men an effect of supplementation→time?Supplementary	S07 addresses the direction of exercise affecting B2 status in adult men. Historical access was limited to the publisher landing page, and this status response is not a direct result showing that B2 supplementation reduces race time. S07	The boundary explaining the direction and endpoint differences in the current title/facts has been linked.	S07 original article, exposure/outcome direction, nutritional-status tests/time points and actual comparison	Design the performance-improvement question separately as a comparison differing only in B2 exposure.
31	Met	Full text not readStored summary read	N31 · Female status and original MethodsIs the exercise challenge in women by fitness level a comparison of oral B2 versus placebo?Supplementary	The S09 female data compare exercise challenge, fitness groups and B2 status; they are not a randomized oral B2 versus placebo supplementation trial. Use of B2-containing supplements was excluded, and the original Methods registration number was recorded as NL7891. Historical access to portions of abstract/Methods copies is separate from verification of the full official registration. S09	The retained original Methods' exposure direction, exclusions and registration number were linked to their differences from the direct performance question. This does not mean the entire original/registration was read in this work.	S09 original abstract/Methods, exposure/exclusion criteria, results, and original location and registration of NL7891	A performance-comparison question for single-ingredient B2 requires a separate intervention/control trial in the same population.
32	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N32 · Registration discovery and mistaken identityHas discovery of the female study's registration been distinguished from the adjacent TCTR entry?Supplementary	NL-OMON24874 and NL-OMON48355 in S10 are discovery-level candidate aliases, and the detailed official registration was inaccessible at the time. QA05 identified TCTR20190907005 as an adjacent different entry, not the female study's registration. Unverified registration details were not used to fill in the S09 methods. S10 S09	The retained correction of mistaken identity has been linked, but exact comparison of official details/aliases is unverified.	Official full text/identity of NL7891 and OMON candidates, comparison with the original Methods, and discovery-page structure	Compare the identities of the official registration and original article using source materials, and mark uncertain aliases.
33	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N33 · Replication and search scopeAre repeated citations in reviews and limited searching being read as independent replication or absence of studies?Required	The retained direct-comparison family is UF2016 alone, and the recorded number of verified independent replications is 0. The S08 review's repeated citation of Hoffman is not a new trial. Historical searching comprised 63 general-web queries and 3 failed native database searches, without assurance of exhaustive searching. No new search was conducted in this work. S01 S04 S08	Families/repeated citations and the actual historical search scope have been linked, but independent replication of the same question and exhaustive searching for unpublished work/corrections have not been verified.	Unique-family/report map, actual search records, registration/unpublished/correction scope and full review article	Subsequent reviews should transparently record the scope of searches, failures, registrations and corrections, and link independent comparisons addressing the same question.
34	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N34 · Support and independenceWhat is the scope of foundation/public support and no-conflict declarations?Supplementary; required for independence claims	S01 records support from the Western States Endurance Run Foundation, Rossi Family Foundation and VA resources/facilities, and the authors' declaration of no competing interests. Support roles, all donor provenance and product provision are unverified. Historical I2 is not certification of independent replication, external review or absence of influence. S01	The level at which funding/declarations were verified is preserved, but information covering the full scope of independence is lacking.	Funding/product provision, donor provenance, support roles, author declarations/employment and family map	Disclose support roles, product provision, all interests and linkage to independent study families.
35	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N35 · Vomiting and temporal signalWhat can be concluded about vomiting after the 90 km dose?Supplementary; required for harm interpretation	The original record reports that two participants in the B2 group vomited within 1 hour after the 90 km dose. The temporal relationship of an event after dosing is preserved, but B2 causation and comparative risk/incidence are not established. S01	The participant count and temporal signal were verified, but comparative ascertainment/denominators, recovery/re-exposure and alternative explanations were not sufficiently verified.	Number of participants with vomiting, onset/recovery, administration/discontinuation/re-exposure, alternative causes, and placebo ascertainment/denominators	Systematically collect exposure/event timing, discontinuation/recovery, alternative explanations and concomitant use, and plan comparable harm analyses.
36	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N36 · Urine color and awareness eventsDo the 3 participants versus 1 participant noticing urine color represent harm incidence?Supplementary; required for harms/blinding	The retained counts of participants who noticed urine color are 3 in the B2 group and 1 in the placebo group. This record signals a limitation in maintained blinding; it does not establish participant-level incidence of systematically collected adverse events or clinical harm. S01	The awareness record was verified, but actual ascertainment denominators/definitions, timing and information for clinical-harm interpretation are unverified.	Definition/timing of awareness, participant counts, ascertainment scope, actual denominators in both groups and blinding checks	Collect awareness/allocation guesses identically in both groups and disclose ascertainment denominators and onset timing.
37	Unverified	Full text not readStored summary read	N37 · Safety ascertainment and denominatorsWere adverse events, serious events and discontinuations due to harm systematically counted?Supplementary; required for safety claims	Group-specific denominators and ascertainment scope for systematic adverse events, serious adverse events and discontinuations due to harm have not been verified. The existence of vomiting/color-awareness reports is distinct from complete ascertainment or absence of events. S01	The required systematic definitions, ascertainment and exposure/loss/participant-level denominators could not be verified. Unverified information was not converted into 0 events.	AE/SAE definitions in both groups, ascertainment procedures, participants/events, exposure time, discontinuations and loss denominators	Track exposure and losses among all assigned participants, and record events, participants and discontinuations using the same procedures in both groups.
38	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N38 · Official safety contextHave the meanings of no established UL and no known interactions been appropriately limited?Supplementary; required for general safety extensions	The S03 NIH ODS context records that no UL was established because of limited harm data. This does not prove that high doses cannot cause adverse effects. No known clinically relevant drug interactions is likewise not extended to a guarantee of safety for all concomitant use. S03	The retained general official context was verified, but it is not direct verification of all harms/concomitant use in the same race/at the same dose. The full official text was not read in this work.	S03 official safety/interaction original text, update date, evidence scope and data on the same exposure/population	Review harm data addressing the same dose/duration/concomitant use and official updates separately.
39	Unverified	Full text not readStored summary read	N39 · Long-term use, special populations and interferenceDoes the evidence also answer dose/duration, special-population and test-interference questions beyond one race?Supplementary; required for scope extensions	One-race data do not verify pregnancy, lactation, children, renal/hepatic disease, long-term high-dose use or test interference. They do not answer questions about the optimality of other doses/repeated races or persistence of effects after discontinuation. Study doses are not personal dosing recommendations or instructions to replace symptom assessment/treatment during a race. S01 S03	Direct evidence for this extended scope could not be verified in the current retained-material review. Extension conditions were not promoted merely because a narrow time result exists.	Direct evidence on long-term/repeated dosing, vulnerable populations/renal or hepatic conditions, pregnancy/lactation/children, concomitant use and test interference	For each needed extension, separately design a study with the appropriate population, duration and focus on harms/interactions or test interference.
40	Met	Full text not readStored summary read	N40 · Current reading and preservation of original valuesHas this summary review been distinguished from historical full-text and verdict records?Required	The materials actually read in this work are the Korean/structured evidence, bibliography, corrections and historical records in the currently retained 3124 stored summary. Original HTML/PDF access covering 8 pages and other partial access on 2026-09-16 are historical reports; access to external full texts was not attempted in this work, and they were not acquired or read. The original D·30/Caution and historical calculations/self-review are preserved; no new grade, verdict, search or calculation was produced. S01 S02 S03 S04 S05 S06 S07 S08 S09 S10	Original bytes/hashes, dates, current/historical reading and the scope of original-verdict preservation were recorded according to the actions actually taken. This table is not independent clinical/official certification or site publication.	Current original/snapshot SHA, scope actually read, historical access/calculations, existing grade/score and reading receipts	In a subsequent case where new evidence is permitted, preserve original values/previous originals together with dates, access and locations/versions before reviewing linkage conditions.

No items match your search or filter.

40 itemsWhat the statuses mean

Assessment scope

Stored-material review date: 2026-10-04
Original evidence cut-off: 2026-09-16
Scope actually checked: Stored Korean and English manuscripts and case-specific criteria and application records. Full papers, supplements, registrations, plans and original data were not read.
What the dates mean: This is the date the stored materials were checked, not the date of an up-to-date clinical literature search.
Population: Experienced adult ultramarathon runners participating in the 2016 WSER; finishing-time data restricted to study completers
Ingredient, formulation and route: Riboflavin (vitamin B2), ordinary form as reported in the original · Reported as an investigator-prepared capsule with riboflavin as the single active nutrient; batch and excipient documentation unverified · Oral
Dose: 100 mg before the start and 100 mg at 90 km; planned total of 200 mg in one race
Comparator: Color-matched placebo containing 95 mg maltodextrin and 5 mg of 10% beta-carotene powder per capsule; race diet and usual care not standardized
Measured outcome: 161.3 km finishing time (hours) at race completion; Table 1 study completers
Duration: One 161.3 km ultramarathon race; not daily dosing over several weeks
Questions outside this scope: Pain, 400 m recovery, CK and laboratory time to exhaustion are preserved but do not replace this table's time outcome.

Evidence and sources

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

S01 · A Placebo-Controlled Trial of Riboflavin for Enhancement of Ultramarathon Recovery

Source

Material type: Historical extraction of race results/methods from the original article
Materials actually read: Summary reading: the relevant bibliography/facts, Korean text and historical access records in the currently stored manuscript were read. External source materials were not read in this work.
Findings recorded in the stored summary: 27.26 ± 2.36 hours in 18 B2 participants versus 27.08 ± 2.88 hours in 14 placebo participants (mean±SD); nonsignificant table result. Alternating allocation and selected finishers; original CI/exact P/adjusted effect unverified.
Record level: Report-specific results, direction, exclusion and discovery roles from the retained manuscript/extraction dated 2026-09-16. Not direct verification of original clinical materials in this work.
Study overlap and independent replication: The single direct UF2016 family, probable companion/repeated citations and different questions are distinguished. No new verification of external independent replication or unique participant counts was performed in the current work.

Public availability, access and reading status by material
Material	Public availability	Access status	Actually read	Notes
Full article text on the web Material URL unverified	Currently unverified (no external lookup in this work)	Access not attempted	Not read	Distinguish actual reading of the retained stored summary from the history of full/partial access and failures on 2026-09-16. The existence of a link/bibliographic record does not constitute current reading of the full original text.
Full article PDF Material URL unverified	Currently unverified (no external lookup in this work)	Access not attempted	Not read	Distinguish actual reading of the retained stored summary from the history of full/partial access and failures on 2026-09-16. The existence of a link/bibliographic record does not constitute current reading of the full original text.
Full registration web document Material URL unverified	Currently unverified (no external lookup in this work)	Access not attempted	Not read	Distinguish actual reading of the retained stored summary from the history of full/partial access and failures on 2026-09-16. The existence of a link/bibliographic record does not constitute current reading of the full original text.
Full protocol/SAP Material URL unverified	Currently unverified (no external lookup in this work)	Access not attempted	Not read	Distinguish actual reading of the retained stored summary from the history of full/partial access and failures on 2026-09-16. The existence of a link/bibliographic record does not constitute current reading of the full original text.
Raw data Material URL unverified	Currently unverified (no external lookup in this work)	Access not attempted	Not read	Distinguish actual reading of the retained stored summary from the history of full/partial access and failures on 2026-09-16. The existence of a link/bibliographic record does not constitute current reading of the full original text.
Correction materials Material URL unverified	Currently unverified (no external lookup in this work)	Access not attempted	Not read	Distinguish actual reading of the retained stored summary from the history of full/partial access and failures on 2026-09-16. The existence of a link/bibliographic record does not constitute current reading of the full original text.

S02 · A functional evaluation of anti-fatigue and exercise performance improvement following vitamin B complex supplementation in healthy humans, a randomized double-blind trial

Source

Material type: Historical extraction of methods from the original combination-product article
Materials actually read: Summary reading: the relevant bibliography/facts, Korean text and historical access records in the currently stored manuscript were read. External source materials were not read in this work.
Findings recorded in the stored summary: Ex PLUS is a combination of vitamins/minerals/taurine/inositol; it involved 32 healthy nonathletes, a 28-day intervention, a 14-day washout and time to exhaustion at 85% VO2max. This is not a field-race time result for single-ingredient B2.
Record level: Report-specific results, direction, exclusion and discovery roles from the retained manuscript/extraction dated 2026-09-16. Not direct verification of original clinical materials in this work.
Study overlap and independent replication: The single direct UF2016 family, probable companion/repeated citations and different questions are distinguished. No new verification of external independent replication or unique participant counts was performed in the current work.

Public availability, access and reading status by material
Material	Public availability	Access status	Actually read	Notes
Full article text on the web Material URL unverified	Currently unverified (no external lookup in this work)	Access not attempted	Not read	Distinguish actual reading of the retained stored summary from the history of full/partial access and failures on 2026-09-16. The existence of a link/bibliographic record does not constitute current reading of the full original text.
Full registration web document Material URL unverified	Currently unverified (no external lookup in this work)	Access not attempted	Not read	Distinguish actual reading of the retained stored summary from the history of full/partial access and failures on 2026-09-16. The existence of a link/bibliographic record does not constitute current reading of the full original text.

S03 · Riboflavin — Health Professional Fact Sheet

Source

Material type: Historical record of an official general-safety web document
Materials actually read: Summary reading: the relevant bibliography/facts, Korean text and historical access records in the currently stored manuscript were read. External source materials were not read in this work.
Findings recorded in the stored summary: The lack of an established UL due to limited harm data does not mean unlimited safety. No known clinical drug interactions is not a guarantee of safety for every combination.
Record level: Report-specific results, direction, exclusion and discovery roles from the retained manuscript/extraction dated 2026-09-16. Not direct verification of original clinical materials in this work.
Study overlap and independent replication: The single direct UF2016 family, probable companion/repeated citations and different questions are distinguished. No new verification of external independent replication or unique participant counts was performed in the current work.

Public availability, access and reading status by material
Material	Public availability	Access status	Actually read	Notes
Full official web document Material URL unverified	Currently unverified (no external lookup in this work)	Access not attempted	Not read	Distinguish actual reading of the retained stored summary from the history of full/partial access and failures on 2026-09-16. The existence of a link/bibliographic record does not constitute current reading of the full original text.

S04 · A Randomized Controlled Trial of Riboflavin for Enhancement of Ultramarathon Recovery

Source

Material type: Historical bibliographic discovery of a conference abstract
Materials actually read: Summary reading: the relevant bibliography/facts, Korean text and historical access records in the currently stored manuscript were read. External source materials were not read in this work.
Findings recorded in the stored summary: A probable companion with the same topic/investigators/intervention; randomized in its title differs from the alternating allocation in the original article. Exact full-abstract/identity comparison is incomplete; not counted as independent replication.
Record level: Report-specific results, direction, exclusion and discovery roles from the retained manuscript/extraction dated 2026-09-16. Not direct verification of original clinical materials in this work.
Study overlap and independent replication: The single direct UF2016 family, probable companion/repeated citations and different questions are distinguished. No new verification of external independent replication or unique participant counts was performed in the current work.

Public availability, access and reading status by material
Material	Public availability	Access status	Actually read	Notes
Full conference abstract Material URL unverified	Currently unverified (no external lookup in this work)	Access not attempted	Not read	Distinguish actual reading of the retained stored summary from the history of full/partial access and failures on 2026-09-16. The existence of a link/bibliographic record does not constitute current reading of the full original text.
Full web document Material URL unverified	Currently unverified (no external lookup in this work)	Access not attempted	Not read	Distinguish actual reading of the retained stored summary from the history of full/partial access and failures on 2026-09-16. The existence of a link/bibliographic record does not constitute current reading of the full original text.

S05 · The effects of a riboflavin supplementation on the nutritional status and performance of elite swimmers

Source

Material type: Historical bibliographic discovery of the 1984 swimming article
Materials actually read: Summary reading: the relevant bibliography/facts, Korean text and historical access records in the currently stored manuscript were read. External source materials were not read in this work.
Findings recorded in the stored summary: A title concerning supplementation, nutritional status and performance in elite swimmers was identified, but age, endpoint, dose, design and effect/CI are unverified. Not counted as direct race-time evidence or independent replication.
Record level: Report-specific results, direction, exclusion and discovery roles from the retained manuscript/extraction dated 2026-09-16. Not direct verification of original clinical materials in this work.
Study overlap and independent replication: The single direct UF2016 family, probable companion/repeated citations and different questions are distinguished. No new verification of external independent replication or unique participant counts was performed in the current work.

Public availability, access and reading status by material
Material	Public availability	Access status	Actually read	Notes
Full article text Material URL unverified	Currently unverified (no external lookup in this work)	Access not attempted	Not read	Distinguish actual reading of the retained stored summary from the history of full/partial access and failures on 2026-09-16. The existence of a link/bibliographic record does not constitute current reading of the full original text.
Full article abstract Material URL unverified	Currently unverified (no external lookup in this work)	Access not attempted	Not read	Distinguish actual reading of the retained stored summary from the history of full/partial access and failures on 2026-09-16. The existence of a link/bibliographic record does not constitute current reading of the full original text.

S06 · Riboflavin requirements and exercise adaptation in older women

Source

Material type: Historical index discovery of the 1992 article on older women
Materials actually read: Summary reading: the relevant bibliography/facts, Korean text and historical access records in the currently stored manuscript were read. External source materials were not read in this work.
Findings recorded in the stored summary: Concerns B2 requirements/exercise adaptation in older women, not an elite-swimming study. No decisive performance numbers were imported.
Record level: Report-specific results, direction, exclusion and discovery roles from the retained manuscript/extraction dated 2026-09-16. Not direct verification of original clinical materials in this work.
Study overlap and independent replication: The single direct UF2016 family, probable companion/repeated citations and different questions are distinguished. No new verification of external independent replication or unique participant counts was performed in the current work.

Public availability, access and reading status by material
Material	Public availability	Access status	Actually read	Notes
Full article text Material URL unverified	Currently unverified (no external lookup in this work)	Access not attempted	Not read	Distinguish actual reading of the retained stored summary from the history of full/partial access and failures on 2026-09-16. The existence of a link/bibliographic record does not constitute current reading of the full original text.
Full article abstract Material URL unverified	Currently unverified (no external lookup in this work)	Access not attempted	Not read	Distinguish actual reading of the retained stored summary from the history of full/partial access and failures on 2026-09-16. The existence of a link/bibliographic record does not constitute current reading of the full original text.

S07 · The effect of exercise on the riboflavin status of adult men

Source

Material type: Historical publisher discovery of the 1993 article on male status
Materials actually read: Summary reading: the relevant bibliography/facts, Korean text and historical access records in the currently stored manuscript were read. External source materials were not read in this work.
Findings recorded in the stored summary: The B2 status response to exercise is not direct evidence that B2 supplementation reduces race time. Original details/numerical values unverified.
Record level: Report-specific results, direction, exclusion and discovery roles from the retained manuscript/extraction dated 2026-09-16. Not direct verification of original clinical materials in this work.
Study overlap and independent replication: The single direct UF2016 family, probable companion/repeated citations and different questions are distinguished. No new verification of external independent replication or unique participant counts was performed in the current work.

Public availability, access and reading status by material
Material	Public availability	Access status	Actually read	Notes
Full article text Material URL unverified	Currently unverified (no external lookup in this work)	Access not attempted	Not read	Distinguish actual reading of the retained stored summary from the history of full/partial access and failures on 2026-09-16. The existence of a link/bibliographic record does not constitute current reading of the full original text.
Full web document Material URL unverified	Currently unverified (no external lookup in this work)	Access not attempted	Not read	Distinguish actual reading of the retained stored summary from the history of full/partial access and failures on 2026-09-16. The existence of a link/bibliographic record does not constitute current reading of the full original text.

S08 · Vitamin Supplementation in Sports: A Decade of Evidence-Based Insights

Source

Material type: Historical search/citation map for the 2026 review
Materials actually read: Summary reading: the relevant bibliography/facts, Korean text and historical access records in the currently stored manuscript were read. External source materials were not read in this work.
Findings recorded in the stored summary: A repeated citation of Hoffman is not another trial. Opening the original failed at the time, so it was recorded only at the search/reference-map level.
Record level: Report-specific results, direction, exclusion and discovery roles from the retained manuscript/extraction dated 2026-09-16. Not direct verification of original clinical materials in this work.
Study overlap and independent replication: The single direct UF2016 family, probable companion/repeated citations and different questions are distinguished. No new verification of external independent replication or unique participant counts was performed in the current work.

Public availability, access and reading status by material
Material	Public availability	Access status	Actually read	Notes
Full review article Material URL unverified	Currently unverified (no external lookup in this work)	Access not attempted	Not read	Distinguish actual reading of the retained stored summary from the history of full/partial access and failures on 2026-09-16. The existence of a link/bibliographic record does not constitute current reading of the full original text.

S09 · The Effect of a Single Bout of Exercise on Vitamin B2 Status Is Not Different between High- and Low-Fit Females

Source

Material type: Historical extraction of portions of the abstract/Methods from the 2021 article on female status
Materials actually read: Summary reading: the relevant bibliography/facts, Korean text and historical access records in the currently stored manuscript were read. External source materials were not read in this work.
Findings recorded in the stored summary: An exercise-challenge comparison that excluded use of B2-containing supplements. The registration number in the original Methods is NL7891. This is not a randomized oral B2 versus placebo race-time result.
Record level: Report-specific results, direction, exclusion and discovery roles from the retained manuscript/extraction dated 2026-09-16. Not direct verification of original clinical materials in this work.
Study overlap and independent replication: The single direct UF2016 family, probable companion/repeated citations and different questions are distinguished. No new verification of external independent replication or unique participant counts was performed in the current work.

Public availability, access and reading status by material
Material	Public availability	Access status	Actually read	Notes
Full article text Material URL unverified	Currently unverified (no external lookup in this work)	Access not attempted	Not read	Distinguish actual reading of the retained stored summary from the history of full/partial access and failures on 2026-09-16. The existence of a link/bibliographic record does not constitute current reading of the full original text.
Full article abstract Material URL unverified	Currently unverified (no external lookup in this work)	Access not attempted	Not read	Distinguish actual reading of the retained stored summary from the history of full/partial access and failures on 2026-09-16. The existence of a link/bibliographic record does not constitute current reading of the full original text.
Full registration web document Material URL unverified	Currently unverified (no external lookup in this work)	Access not attempted	Not read	Distinguish actual reading of the retained stored summary from the history of full/partial access and failures on 2026-09-16. The existence of a link/bibliographic record does not constitute current reading of the full original text.

S10 · Mitochondrial Coupling Efficiency, Respiration and Vitamin B2 status in Untrained and Endurance-trained Young Females

Source

Material type: Historical discovery/audit of an official registration candidate
Materials actually read: Summary reading: the relevant bibliography/facts, Korean text and historical access records in the currently stored manuscript were read. External source materials were not read in this work.
Findings recorded in the stored summary: OMON aliases remain at the discovery level; official details were inaccessible at the time. The adjacent TCTR entry was not assigned to the female study, and unverified registration material was not used to fill in methods.
Record level: Report-specific results, direction, exclusion and discovery roles from the retained manuscript/extraction dated 2026-09-16. Not direct verification of original clinical materials in this work.
Study overlap and independent replication: The single direct UF2016 family, probable companion/repeated citations and different questions are distinguished. No new verification of external independent replication or unique participant counts was performed in the current work.

Public availability, access and reading status by material
Material	Public availability	Access status	Actually read	Notes
Full official registration web document Material URL unverified	Currently unverified (no external lookup in this work)	Access not attempted	Not read	Distinguish actual reading of the retained stored summary from the history of full/partial access and failures on 2026-09-16. The existence of a link/bibliographic record does not constitute current reading of the full original text.
Full web document Material URL unverified	Currently unverified (no external lookup in this work)	Access not attempted	Not read	Distinguish actual reading of the retained stored summary from the history of full/partial access and failures on 2026-09-16. The existence of a link/bibliographic record does not constitute current reading of the full original text.

Report counts versus independent study counts

These are report linkages for the stored related materials. UF2016 (S01, S04): UF2016 direct race-time family; exact comparison with the probable conference companion is incomplete · S01 HTML/PDF/PubMed same original; S04 probable conference companion, not separate cohort / EXPLUS2023 (S02): different question/unverified candidate; not counted as direct time replication / SWIM1984 (S05): different question/unverified candidate; not counted as direct time replication / FEMALESTATUS2019 (S09, S10): different question/unverified candidate; not counted as direct time replication · Original NL7891; OMON aliases discovery only. The total number of unique trials and total participants are unverified. Reports, bibliographic records and family labels are not summed as independent replications or a total trial count.

Review criteria

Version v3124-B2-ULTRA-FINISH-1.0 · Criteria record date 2026-10-04. These are Chamgap's own application conditions, informed by the referenced methods. They do not constitute official assessment-tool certification or a new efficacy score.

N01 · Which population, intervention, distance and time comparison does this table address?

Required materials and conditions: Linkage of the current claim, population, formulation/route, comparator and endpoint to the excluded endpoints on the same page
Conditions for verification: Link the original /ko/effect precisely to the single-race finishing-time question and explain whether parent and subordinate claims overlap.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Pain, 400 m recovery, CK and laboratory time to exhaustion are preserved but do not replace this table's time outcome.
Why this condition is needed: Prevents favorable recovery or nutritional-status results from being transferred to efficacy for finishing time.
Referenced methods: Question-clarification principles in M03 §3.1, §3.2.1–3.2.4; detailed separation rules are self-designed; M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are self-designed

N02 · Are the study's single-ingredient riboflavin and exact product specifications verified?

Required materials and conditions: Documentation of the trial capsule's molecule/salt, batch, active amount, complete excipients and quality
Conditions for verification: Record the reported molecule, single-ingredient status and route separately from unverified specifications.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not extend the report of riboflavin as a single active nutrient to verified documentation of the exact salt, manufacturing batch or complete excipients.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent results for B-vitamin combinations or other formulations from being linked as the same intervention.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction markers and test adaptations are self-designed

N03 · To what extent do the actual runners match the population in the original claim?

Required materials and conditions: 2016 WSER inclusion/exclusion criteria, age range, experience, baseline racing ability and special-population data
Conditions for verification: Identify the race-participation setting, selected time-analysis population and unverified detailed population criteria.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: If exact age/disease criteria are unverified, do not invent criteria beyond the original adult-population scope.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent experienced race participants from being generalized to all athletes or adults in general.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.1; detailed population criteria are self-designed

N04 · Is it verified whether this is correction of deficiency or additional supplementation on top of adequate intake?

Required materials and conditions: Baseline B2 markers/deficiency thresholds, total dietary B2, concurrent supplements and baseline data by group
Conditions for verification: Distinguish actually measured baseline status from unverified nutritional/dietary dimensions.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Record the supplementation intent, but do not establish deficiency or adequacy in a population whose testing has not been verified.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent unreported baseline status from being converted into confirmed absence of deficiency or direct evidence for deficiency treatment.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.1; detailed population criteria are self-designed; M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction markers and test adaptations are self-designed; M03 §3.2.1–3.2.4; details of dose, duration and effect modification are self-designed

N05 · Are the two administrations in one race distinguished from long-term daily dosing?

Required materials and conditions: Administration specifications, oral route, timing before the start/at 90 km, and planned total amount
Conditions for verification: Link the plan for 100 mg 0.5–1 hour before the start and 100 mg at 90 km to exposure in one race.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: The planned total and each person's actual intake are separate; do not label this a long-term 200 mg/day trial.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent the exploratory search term of 400 mg or a daily dose from replacing the actual intervention.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction markers and test adaptations are self-designed; M03 §3.2.1–3.2.4; details of dose, duration and effect modification are self-designed

N06 · Did everyone actually receive the planned second dose?

Required materials and conditions: Individual administration/omission, vomiting, time available for absorption, adherence and analytical-handling records
Conditions for verification: Link verified omissions/vomiting to gaps in actual administered amounts and limits on assessing their analytical impact.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not estimate the amount absorbed after vomiting or the number of participants with omitted doses if the manuscript does not provide them.
Why this condition is needed: Treating the planned amount as actual exposure in everyone changes the comparison for the selected intervention.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction markers and test adaptations are self-designed; M03 §3.2.3, M08 §8.2.2–8.2.3; self-developed application; M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; self-developed application

N07 · Are powder mass and active amount distinguished for the color-matched placebo?

Required materials and conditions: Placebo batch/ingredients, maltodextrin and beta-carotene powder specifications, and assessment of physiological effects
Conditions for verification: Attribute the reported 95 mg/5 mg composition and historical nominal 0.5 mg separately, without assuming physiological equivalence.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not read 5 mg of 10% powder as 5 mg of active beta-carotene, or convert a nominal calculation into measured content.
Why this condition is needed: The actual comparison can be explained only after identifying the placebo and its nominal powder mass.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction markers and test adaptations are self-designed; M03 §3.2.3, M08 §8.2.2–8.2.3; self-developed application

N08 · Are the diet, usual-care and analgesic differences actually internally consistent?

Required materials and conditions: Diet/race care in both groups, medication types/participant counts, original table/text and corrections, and analytical handling
Conditions for verification: Preserve the verified lack of standardized care and the conflicting placebo medication-user counts, and leave the unresolved value as null.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: If the text, table and sum across medication types differ, do not select one or calculate a correction.
Why this condition is needed: Prevents concomitant use and internal data conflicts from being attributed to B2's contribution.
Referenced methods: M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; status distinctions are self-designed; M03 §3.2.3, M08 §8.2.2–8.2.3; self-developed application; M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; self-developed application

N09 · Has the randomized title been distinguished from actual alternating allocation?

Required materials and conditions: Allocation by registration-arrival order, sequence generation, baseline balance and related report identities
Conditions for verification: Label alternating allocation and its predictability according to the current detailed allocation record.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not remove nonrandomized data or treat verification of design identity as satisfaction of causality requirements.
Why this condition is needed: The word randomized in the title cannot replace the nonrandom procedure in the detailed Methods.
Referenced methods: M08 §8.1–8.2.3; self-developed application; M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; status distinctions are self-designed

N10 · Was it impossible to predict or change the allocation sequence?

Required materials and conditions: Allocation personnel/concealment implementation, registration process, any breaches and baseline characteristics
Conditions for verification: Record the allocation actually verified separately from the unverified effectiveness of concealment.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Unverified concealment information does not establish the magnitude of concealment failure or the occurrence of manipulation.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent the predictability of alternating allocation from being automatically offset by assumed successful concealment.
Referenced methods: M08 §8.1–8.2.3; self-developed application

N11 · Are participant/onsite-researcher blinding and noticing urine color distinguished?

Required materials and conditions: Blinding implementation, timing of noticing urine color, allocation guesses, assessors and checks of maintained blinding
Conditions for verification: Preserve reported blinding together with unverified maintenance and cases of awareness.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Record whether blinding was maintained even for an objective time outcome, but do not estimate the magnitude of time-related bias solely from urine-color awareness.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent the mere presence of a color-matched placebo from being used to claim perfect blinding.
Referenced methods: M08 Table 8.2.a, M03 §3.2.4; self-developed application; M03 §3.2.3, M08 §8.2.2–8.2.3; self-developed application

N12 · What denominators do 44 participants, 37 participants and 32 participants each represent?

Required materials and conditions: Group-specific allocation/starting, finishing and data-completeness flow, and the identity of the Table 1 analysis
Conditions for verification: Link the stages of 22/22 starters, 20/17 finishers and 18/14 with complete data.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not rename alternately allocated participant counts as randomized n or label the results as means for 37 participants.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent starter or finisher counts from being substituted as the denominators for the table's means.
Referenced methods: M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; design-specific adaptations are self-designed; M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; self-developed application

N13 · How were nonfinishing and incomplete data after finishing handled?

Required materials and conditions: Individual reasons for nonfinishing/missing data, the analysis plan for the effect in all assigned participants, and raw data
Conditions for verification: Separate nonfinishing from incomplete data among finishers, and retain the unverified status of estimation for all starters.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not arbitrarily assign times to nonfinishers without finishing times; retain historical subtraction values as separate calculation records.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent different reasons for loss from being combined or selected completers from being interpreted as the effect in all assigned participants.
Referenced methods: M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; design-specific adaptations are self-designed; M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; self-developed application

N14 · For what distance, at what time point and with what device was time measured?

Required materials and conditions: Official race-completion time, timing device/adjudication, course conditions, record verification and Table 1 location
Conditions for verification: Distinguish the time unit at actual 161.3 km race completion from unverified recording procedures.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: If device/adjudication details are unverified, do not declare measurement complete merely because the outcome is objective.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent field-race finishing time from being treated as equivalent to a laboratory test or recovery run.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are self-designed; M08 Table 8.2.a, M03 §3.2.4; self-developed application

N15 · Was finishing time a prespecified primary efficacy endpoint?

Required materials and conditions: Registration/protocol/SAP, endpoint/time-point hierarchy, the table's purpose and reasons for changes
Conditions for verification: Preserve the recovery focus of the study and the location of time in the characteristics table, and indicate that the prespecified hierarchy is unverified.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not convert failure to acquire the plan into confirmed selective reporting or lack of registration.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent time in a characteristics table from being relabeled as a prespecified primary (1st) efficacy outcome.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are self-designed; M08 Table 8.2.a, M04 §4.6.3; self-developed application

N16 · Are the Table 1 means and dispersion measures attributed to the same population/units?

Required materials and conditions: Group-specific complete-data n, mean time, SD notation, and original table/units
Conditions for verification: Preserve 27.26±2.36 hours for B2 n=18 and 27.08±2.88 hours for placebo n=14 as mean±SD.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not use mean±SD as individual differences/between-group CI, or extract precision beyond the table summaries.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent SD from being read as SE or CI, or linked to a different denominator.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are self-designed; M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; design-specific adaptations are self-designed

N17 · Has nonsignificance for time been kept from being converted into an effect of 0 or equivalence?

Required materials and conditions: The original table's no-difference statement, coherent between-group estimates/intervals and a validated important-difference criterion
Conditions for verification: Link the retained nonsignificant result and current interpretation limits to the same endpoint.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not obscure nonsignificance with favorable results for other recovery outcomes, or equate nonsignificance with exclusion of important benefit.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent nonsignificant results from being favorably omitted or expressed as definitive absence of effect.
Referenced methods: M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; status distinctions are self-designed; M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; self-developed application

N18 · Are author-reported between-group CI, exact P and adjusted estimates available?

Required materials and conditions: CI for the original time outcome, exact test P, adjusted model/estimand and results table
Conditions for verification: Separate verification status for original CI, exact P and adjusted effect from historical recalculation.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: If an original value is null, do not fill the gap even when historical calculations exist.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent recalculated summary statistics from being used as original author reports or adjusted causal estimates.
Referenced methods: M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; design-specific adaptations are self-designed; M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; self-developed application; M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; self-developed application

N19 · Are the sign and descriptive meaning of the retained mean difference preserved?

Required materials and conditions: Historical arithmetic inputs, B2−placebo direction, original mean-difference values/limits and calculation provenance
Conditions for verification: Specify the direction of the historical +0.18 hours (+10.8 minutes) and its limitation as a descriptive value for a selected sample.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Perform no new calculations in this work, and retain both rounded displays and the original stored floating-point values.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent a positive time difference from being converted into new causal harm or significant delay.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are self-designed; M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; self-developed application; M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; status distinctions are self-designed

N20 · Can the assumptions of the equal-variance t-reconstructed interval be verified?

Required materials and conditions: Original retained pooled-calculation values, inputs, assumptions, selected sample and distinction from original reporting
Conditions for verification: Attribute the existing CI/P/SE/df solely to an assumption-dependent descriptive model.
Requirement and applicability: Supplementary
Application exceptions: Do not establish that the authors used the equal-variance t subtype. Reconstruction does not remedy missingness/confounding.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to preserve existing arithmetic without promoting it to an original CI or causal precision.
Referenced methods: M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; design-specific adaptations are self-designed; M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; self-developed application; M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; self-developed application

N21 · Were the unequal-variance sensitivity results also preserved as a separate model?

Required materials and conditions: Retained Welch values, assumptions, inputs, differences from pooled results and verification status of the original interval
Conditions for verification: Link the historical Welch CI/P/SE/df to that model and explain the remaining causal limitations.
Requirement and applicability: Supplementary
Application exceptions: Do not classify differences between sensitivity-model results as a conflict within the same source data. Perform no new recalculation.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent model selection that presents only favorable intervals or relabels them as author CI.
Referenced methods: M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; status distinctions are self-designed; M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; self-developed application; M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; self-developed application

N22 · Is there a basis for deciding how much faster a time constitutes important benefit?

Required materials and conditions: Justified important-difference and equivalence thresholds for the same race/population, and appropriate original estimation intervals
Conditions for verification: Distinguish the unverified important difference, unestablished equivalence and inapplicability of NNT.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not create universal thresholds for minutes, participant numbers or duration, or force NNT onto a continuous-time question.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent CX in the existing score or nonsignificance from being used to exclude important benefit.
Referenced methods: M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; self-developed application; M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are self-designed

N23 · Is a comparative effect accounting for baseline racing ability and selection verified?

Required materials and conditions: Baseline racing ability, experience on the same course, nutritional/care covariates and prespecified adjustment/analysis of all participants
Conditions for verification: Link the unverified adjusted effect and baseline balance to limitations on the current effect of interest.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Lack of adjustment does not establish the magnitude of bias; do not adjust values using a new model.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent the selected-completer mean difference from being read as the effect of B2 in all assigned participants.
Referenced methods: M08 §8.1–8.2.3; self-developed application; M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; self-developed application

N24 · Have the official registration, protocol and SAP been compared with the original report?

Required materials and conditions: Full original registration/protocol/SAP, versions/dates and endpoint/analysis comparisons
Conditions for verification: Indicate the scope of plans acquired/read and the scope not compared according to the actions actually taken in this work.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: S01 registration_id=null does not prove absence of an external registration that is currently unverified.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent ethics approval or study existence from being treated as reading the registration/plans.
Referenced methods: Material collection/selection principles in M04 §4.5–4.6; distinctions between access and reading and the hyperlink contract are self-designed; M04 §4.5, §4.6.3; limits on the current material conversion follow the user-defined scope and self-designed rules; M08 Table 8.2.a, M04 §4.6.3; self-developed application

N25 · Are the conference title and original journal article being counted as independent replications?

Required materials and conditions: S01/S04 original reports, full conference text, cohort/time-point/participant linkage and design wording
Conditions for verification: Preserve probable-companion status, lack of acquired full text and conflicting design wording in the title; do not count it as a separate replication.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not overstate a probable same-family link as a confirmed finding about participant independence/overlap.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent a companion report from the same investigators/intervention from being counted as two race trials.
Referenced methods: Distinction between studies and reports in M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2; cohort/outcome linkage is a self-developed application; M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; status distinctions are self-designed; M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2, M15 §15.3.1; self-developed application

N26 · Are positive signals for pain/400 m recovery being substituted as time evidence?

Required materials and conditions: Endpoint-specific results, time points, tests/hierarchy and finishing-time separation records from the same study
Conditions for verification: Distinguish the endpoints of some recovery/pain signals from the actual time outcome.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not add numbers/CI to recovery signals for which the currently retained manuscript supplies no numerical values.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to preserve favorable results without obscuring the no-difference result for the selected finishing-time outcome.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are self-designed; M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; status distinctions are self-designed; M03 §3.2.4; self-defined extension boundary

N27 · Does time to exhaustion with a combination product in nonathletes answer the single-ingredient B2 race-time question?

Required materials and conditions: S02 ingredient table, population, exposure/washout, actual performance test and registration/original results
Conditions for verification: Record the boundary of a combination product in 32 healthy nonathletes, 28 days, a 14-day washout and time to exhaustion at 85% VO2max.
Requirement and applicability: Supplementary
Application exceptions: Do not isolate the B2 component's effect from a combination product in nonathletes or convert it into race finishing time.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent differences in composition, population and endpoint in indirect evidence from being combined as replications of single-ingredient B2.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.1; detailed population criteria are self-designed; M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction markers and test adaptations are self-designed; M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are self-designed; M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2, M15 §15.3.1; self-developed application

N28 · Have the swimming article's eligibility and numerical values been verified?

Required materials and conditions: Full original 1984 article, age/ingredient/dose, design, performance test, denominators and effect/intervals
Conditions for verification: Display title/bibliographic identity separately from unverified eligibility/numerical values.
Requirement and applicability: Supplementary
Application exceptions: Do not use historical inaccessibility of the original as absence of the article/study; distinguish it from access not attempted in the current work.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent bibliographic discovery from being promoted to a performance effect or independent replication.
Referenced methods: Material collection/selection principles in M04 §4.5–4.6; distinctions between access and reading and the hyperlink contract are self-designed; M03 §3.2.1; detailed population criteria are self-designed; M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are self-designed; M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2, M15 §15.3.1; self-developed application

N29 · Have the Winters1992 population and the swimming study been separated?

Required materials and conditions: S06 bibliography, original article/abstract, exercise-adaptation/nutrient-requirement endpoints and QA01 correction
Conditions for verification: Separate the exercise-adaptation/requirement question in older women from the elite-swimming candidate.
Requirement and applicability: Supplementary
Application exceptions: Do not fill in actual performance numbers or effects solely from title verification.
Why this condition is needed: Prevents a mistaken population link in exploratory queries from being carried over to numerical values from another article.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.1; detailed population criteria are self-designed; M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are self-designed; M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; status distinctions are self-designed

N30 · Is post-exercise B2 status in adult men an effect of supplementation→time?

Required materials and conditions: S07 original article, exposure/outcome direction, nutritional-status tests/time points and actual comparison
Conditions for verification: Indicate the exercise→B2 status direction shown by the current title/facts and its difference from the performance question.
Requirement and applicability: Supplementary
Application exceptions: Do not convert facts about status endpoints into supplementation effects or clinical deficiency treatment.
Why this condition is needed: Prevents nutritional-status responses to exercise from being mixed with supplement effects on performance in the reverse direction.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction markers and test adaptations are self-designed; M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are self-designed; M03 §3.2.4; self-defined extension boundary

N31 · Is the exercise challenge in women by fitness level a comparison of oral B2 versus placebo?

Required materials and conditions: S09 original abstract/Methods, exposure/exclusion criteria, results, and original location and registration of NL7891
Conditions for verification: Link the exclusion of B2-containing supplement use, exercise challenge, status endpoint and original NL7891 separately.
Requirement and applicability: Supplementary
Application exceptions: Verifying a registration number in the original Methods is separate from reading the full official registration.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent exercise-challenge observations from being called a single-ingredient B2 supplementation trial.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.1; detailed population criteria are self-designed; M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction markers and test adaptations are self-designed; M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are self-designed; M04 §4.5, §4.6.3; limits on the current material conversion follow the user-defined scope and self-designed rules

N32 · Has discovery of the female study's registration been distinguished from the adjacent TCTR entry?

Required materials and conditions: Official full text/identity of NL7891 and OMON candidates, comparison with the original Methods, and discovery-page structure
Conditions for verification: Preserve separation of the adjacent TCTR entry, nonacquisition of official details and the S09 original Methods basis.
Requirement and applicability: Supplementary
Application exceptions: OMON aliases remain at the discovery level; do not promote unread official details to verified methods.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent registration numbers in adjacent search results from being used to fill in the original study's identity/methods.
Referenced methods: Distinction between studies and reports in M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2; cohort/outcome linkage is a self-developed application; material collection/selection principles in M04 §4.5–4.6; distinctions between access and reading and the hyperlink contract are self-designed; M04 §4.5, §4.6.3; limits on the current material conversion follow the user-defined scope and self-designed rules

N33 · Are repeated citations in reviews and limited searching being read as independent replication or absence of studies?

Required materials and conditions: Unique-family/report map, actual search records, registration/unpublished/correction scope and full review article
Conditions for verification: Display the single direct family, unverified independent replication, repeated citations in reviews and search limitations together.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: The 63 web queries and 3 failures are historical records, not new successful searches or current exhaustive verification.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent one family and an incomplete search from being converted into replication success/failure or 0 studies worldwide.
Referenced methods: Distinction between studies and reports in M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2; cohort/outcome linkage is a self-developed application; M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; status distinctions are self-designed; M04 §4.5, §4.6.3; limits on the current material conversion follow the user-defined scope and self-designed rules; M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2, M15 §15.3.1; self-developed application

N34 · What is the scope of foundation/public support and no-conflict declarations?

Required materials and conditions: Funding/product provision, donor provenance, support roles, author declarations/employment and family map
Conditions for verification: Explain actual funding/declarations and the boundaries of unverified support information.
Requirement and applicability: Supplementary; required for independence claims
Application exceptions: Do not fill gaps concerning donors, product provision or roles in foundation/public support with an assumption of no corporate influence.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent reported declarations from being used as proof of external review, absence of bias or independent replication.
Referenced methods: Chamgap's own independence/attribution criteria. The official methods sections in this pilot do not validate every detail of this item; distinction between studies and reports in M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2; cohort/outcome linkage is a self-developed application

N35 · What can be concluded about vomiting after the 90 km dose?

Required materials and conditions: Number of participants with vomiting, onset/recovery, administration/discontinuation/re-exposure, alternative causes, and placebo ascertainment/denominators
Conditions for verification: Preserve the record of 2 participants in the B2 group within 1 hour after administration at 90 km as a temporal signal.
Requirement and applicability: Supplementary; required for harm interpretation
Application exceptions: Do not infer the amount absorbed after vomiting or other causes, and do not convert 2 participants into an incidence rate.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to separate the occurrence of an event after dosing from comparative risk/causation.
Referenced methods: M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; self-developed application; M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; detailed distinctions are self-designed; design-specific harm questions in M19 §19.2; details of temporal relationships are self-designed; design considerations in M19 §19.2.2–19.2.4; detailed confounding records are self-designed; Chamgap's own interpretation boundary. Informed by M19 principles, not execution of an official causality tool

N36 · Do the 3 participants versus 1 participant noticing urine color represent harm incidence?

Required materials and conditions: Definition/timing of awareness, participant counts, ascertainment scope, actual denominators in both groups and blinding checks
Conditions for verification: Link the report of 3 participants versus 1 participant to limits on interpreting blinding maintenance/safety.
Requirement and applicability: Supplementary; required for harms/blinding
Application exceptions: Do not automatically substitute the table's time-analysis denominator or the starter denominator for the awareness-ascertainment denominator.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent awareness counts from being converted into systematic adverse-event incidence or a confirmed proportion with allocation unblinded.
Referenced methods: M08 Table 8.2.a, M03 §3.2.4; self-developed application; M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; self-developed application; M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; detailed distinctions are self-designed

N37 · Were adverse events, serious events and discontinuations due to harm systematically counted?

Required materials and conditions: AE/SAE definitions in both groups, ascertainment procedures, participants/events, exposure time, discontinuations and loss denominators
Conditions for verification: Retain currently verified signals and specific gaps in systematic ascertainment/denominators.
Requirement and applicability: Supplementary; required for safety claims
Application exceptions: Do not use unreported/unverified information as 0 events or proof of no serious events.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent a few event records and efficacy data from being converted into complete safety assurance.
Referenced methods: M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; design-specific adaptations are self-designed; M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; self-developed application; M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; detailed distinctions are self-designed; M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4, M04 §4.6.3; self-developed application; Chamgap's own interpretation boundary. Informed by M19 principles, not execution of an official causality tool

N38 · Have the meanings of no established UL and no known interactions been appropriately limited?

Required materials and conditions: S03 official safety/interaction original text, update date, evidence scope and data on the same exposure/population
Conditions for verification: Indicate that the lack of an established UL reflects limited harm data and specify the scope of verification of known interactions.
Requirement and applicability: Supplementary; required for general safety extensions
Application exceptions: Do not count a general official document as a direct comparative harm result for this race/all concomitant use.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent the lack of an established upper limit from being read as unlimited high-dose safety.
Referenced methods: M04 §4.5, §4.6.3; limits on the current material conversion follow the user-defined scope and self-designed rules; M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; self-developed application; Chamgap's own interpretation boundary. Informed by M19 principles, not execution of an official causality tool

N39 · Does the evidence also answer dose/duration, special-population and test-interference questions beyond one race?

Required materials and conditions: Direct evidence on long-term/repeated dosing, vulnerable populations/renal or hepatic conditions, pregnancy/lactation/children, concomitant use and test interference
Conditions for verification: Distinguish the direct one-race scope from unverified long-term/special-population, interaction and interference questions.
Requirement and applicability: Supplementary; required for scope extensions
Application exceptions: Do not require every extension study for the narrow finishing-time table, but explicitly mark unverified information in extension claims.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent brief race data from being generalized to overall safety, optimal dosing or efficacy in all runners.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.1–3.2.4; details of dose, duration and effect modification are self-designed; M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; self-developed application

N40 · Has this summary review been distinguished from historical full-text and verdict records?

Required materials and conditions: Current original/snapshot SHA, scope actually read, historical access/calculations, existing grade/score and reading receipts
Conditions for verification: Separately record the original stored summary's bytes/date, current summary reading, nonreading of the original article and preservation of D/30/Caution.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Distinguish stored-original-file/hash null values from unexamined historical files, and do not claim a new download/reassessment was performed.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent full-text access/self-review on 2026-09-16 from being represented as original-source reading or independent certification today.
Referenced methods: Material collection/selection principles in M04 §4.5–4.6; distinctions between access and reading and the hyperlink contract are self-designed; M04 §4.5, §4.6.3; limits on the current material conversion follow the user-defined scope and self-designed rules

Referenced methods and the sections actually reviewed

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

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

Referenced principle: Clearly record the question, eligibility criteria and reasons for changes, and distinguish variations in the intervention.
Extent of review: Self-developed application reusing the directly reviewed methodological principles/versions and actual HTML copies/SHAs from 1585. No new reading of full methodological texts or official execution/certification in this work

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

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

Referenced principle: Distinguish and link studies and reports, and do not omit a study solely because its outcomes are not reported.
Extent of review: Self-developed application reusing the directly reviewed methodological principles/versions and actual HTML copies/SHAs from 1585. No new reading of full methodological texts or official execution/certification in this work

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

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

Referenced principle: Hold the outcome and effect of interest fixed, then assess randomization, deviations, missing data, measurement and selective reporting.
Extent of review: Self-developed application reusing the directly reviewed methodological principles/versions and actual HTML copies/SHAs from 1585. No new reading of full methodological texts or official execution/certification in this work

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

Official methodology · §15.2.4, §15.3.1–15.3.3

Referenced principle: Distinguish effect estimates, intervals, importance and applicability. Sample size alone does not determine precision.
Extent of review: Self-developed application reusing the directly reviewed methodological principles/versions and actual HTML copies/SHAs from 1585. No new reading of full methodological texts or official execution/certification in this work

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

Official methodology · §19.1.2, §19.2.1–19.2.4

Referenced principle: Questions about harms may require designs, populations and follow-up different from efficacy questions. Case reports do not establish incidence.
Extent of review: Self-developed application reusing the directly reviewed methodological principles/versions and actual HTML copies/SHAs from 1585. No new reading of full methodological texts or official execution/certification in this work

What the statuses mean

Met: The selected preservation/linkage condition can be explained. Distinct from confirmation of efficacy
Partly verified: Some required information is linked, but specific gaps remain
Unverified: Required information/conditions could not be verified within the currently permitted retained-material review scope
Conflicting information: Unresolved conflict among original text/table/total records concerning the same medication-user count. No arbitrary correction
Not applicable: Nonapplicability of an extension question absent from the original claim. Distinct from nonreading or absence of effect

Change history

2026-11-07 · Public page/material version 1.0

Public-facing displays and data were prepared from the existing 40 items. No new clinical search, change of verification status or scoring was performed.

The stored-material review date (2026-10-04) and original evidence cut-off (2026-09-16) were retained unchanged.

Researcher downloads

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

View all item details

N01 · Which population, intervention, distance and time comparison does this table address?

Current findings: The original claim concerns 161.3 km race finishing time in experienced adult ultramarathon runners. The table presents a one-race comparison of oral single-ingredient B2 versus a color-matched placebo. subclaims=[]; pain, 400 m recovery, CK, vitamin status and laboratory time trials are separate outcomes.
Verification status: Met
Materials actually read: Summary reading: the specified locations in the retained 3124 stored summary were actually read. Full articles/PDFs, appendices, registrations/protocols, raw data and corrections were not read in this work.
Why unverified: The identity and inclusion/exclusion boundaries of the independent claim have been linked to the current ID and exact original wording. This condition being met does not establish a reduction in finishing time.
Reason for missing information: There is no gap in identity linkage, but causal effect and precision remain unverified in separate rows.
Required materials and conditions: Linkage of the current claim, population, formulation/route, comparator and endpoint to the excluded endpoints on the same page
Materials to obtain first: Linkage of the current claim, population, formulation/route, comparator and endpoint to the excluded endpoints on the same page
Further research: In subsequent research, prespecify the finishing-time question for the same distance separately from the recovery question.
Remaining uncertainty: There is no gap in identity linkage, but causal effect and precision remain unverified in separate rows.
Conditions for verification: Link the original /ko/effect precisely to the single-race finishing-time question and explain whether parent and subordinate claims overlap.
Why this condition is needed: Prevents favorable recovery or nutritional-status results from being transferred to efficacy for finishing time.
Application exceptions: Pain, 400 m recovery, CK and laboratory time to exhaustion are preserved but do not replace this table's time outcome.
Referenced methods: Question-clarification principles in M03 §3.1, §3.2.1–3.2.4; detailed separation rules are self-designed; M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are self-designed

Related sources S01

N02 · Are the study's single-ingredient riboflavin and exact product specifications verified?

Current findings: The study reports oral capsules containing riboflavin as the single active nutrient. Documentation of the exact salt, product batch and complete excipients has not been verified. Results for B-vitamin combinations or other formulations are not treated as the same intervention.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: Summary reading: the specified locations in the retained 3124 stored summary were actually read. Full articles/PDFs, appendices, registrations/protocols, raw data and corrections were not read in this work.
Why unverified: The molecule, single active nutrient and route are preserved, but the full product specifications have not been verified.
Reason for missing information: The salt, batch, complete excipients and documentation of measured active amount/quality are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Documentation of the trial capsule's molecule/salt, batch, active amount, complete excipients and quality
Materials to obtain first: Documentation of the trial capsule's molecule/salt, batch, active amount, complete excipients and quality
Further research: Disclose batch specifications and analytical data for the trial product and directly compare interventions with the same specifications.
Remaining uncertainty: The salt, batch, complete excipients and documentation of measured active amount/quality are unverified.
Conditions for verification: Record the reported molecule, single-ingredient status and route separately from unverified specifications.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent results for B-vitamin combinations or other formulations from being linked as the same intervention.
Application exceptions: Do not extend the report of riboflavin as a single active nutrient to verified documentation of the exact salt, manufacturing batch or complete excipients.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction markers and test adaptations are self-designed

Related sources S01

N03 · To what extent do the actual runners match the population in the original claim?

Current findings: The actual data concern experienced adult ultramarathon participants in the 2016 Western States Endurance Run. Finishing time is restricted to 32 study completers with complete data. Exact age eligibility limits and renal/hepatic-disease and pregnancy subgroups are unverified.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: Summary reading: the specified locations in the retained 3124 stored summary were actually read. Full articles/PDFs, appendices, registrations/protocols, raw data and corrections were not read in this work.
Why unverified: The race setting, experienced adults and actual time-analysis population have been linked, but detailed selection criteria and special-population coverage have not been verified.
Reason for missing information: Age and inclusion/exclusion details, baseline racing ability, and renal/hepatic-disease and pregnancy subgroups are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: 2016 WSER inclusion/exclusion criteria, age range, experience, baseline racing ability and special-population data
Materials to obtain first: 2016 WSER inclusion/exclusion criteria, age range, experience, baseline racing ability and special-population data
Further research: Subsequent trials should specify racing experience and selection criteria and predefine population-specific applicability limits.
Remaining uncertainty: Age and inclusion/exclusion details, baseline racing ability, and renal/hepatic-disease and pregnancy subgroups are unverified.
Conditions for verification: Identify the race-participation setting, selected time-analysis population and unverified detailed population criteria.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent experienced race participants from being generalized to all athletes or adults in general.
Application exceptions: If exact age/disease criteria are unverified, do not invent criteria beyond the original adult-population scope.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.1; detailed population criteria are self-designed

Related sources S01

N04 · Is it verified whether this is correction of deficiency or additional supplementation on top of adequate intake?

Current findings: Although presented as a supplementation question, the population has not been verified as deficient or adequate through measurements of baseline B2 markers, deficiency thresholds and total dietary intake. Unverified status is not used as confirmation of nondeficiency.
Verification status: Unverified
Materials actually read: Summary reading: the specified locations in the retained 3124 stored summary were actually read. Full articles/PDFs, appendices, registrations/protocols, raw data and corrections were not read in this work.
Why unverified: The necessary baseline measurement/intake records could not be verified within the currently retained scope.
Reason for missing information: Baseline markers, deficiency criteria, total dietary B2, concurrent supplements and group-specific data are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Baseline B2 markers/deficiency thresholds, total dietary B2, concurrent supplements and baseline data by group
Materials to obtain first: Baseline B2 markers/deficiency thresholds, total dietary B2, concurrent supplements and baseline data by group
Further research: Measure baseline B2, diet and concurrent supplementation, and plan prespecified effect-modification analyses by deficiency status.
Remaining uncertainty: Baseline markers, deficiency criteria, total dietary B2, concurrent supplements and group-specific data are unverified.
Conditions for verification: Distinguish actually measured baseline status from unverified nutritional/dietary dimensions.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent unreported baseline status from being converted into confirmed absence of deficiency or direct evidence for deficiency treatment.
Application exceptions: Record the supplementation intent, but do not establish deficiency or adequacy in a population whose testing has not been verified.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.1; detailed population criteria are self-designed; M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction markers and test adaptations are self-designed; M03 §3.2.1–3.2.4; details of dose, duration and effect modification are self-designed

Related sources S01

N05 · Are the two administrations in one race distinguished from long-term daily dosing?

Current findings: The plan is to administer oral B2 100 mg 0.5–1 hour before the start and 100 mg at 90 km. The planned total in one 161.3 km race is 200 mg. This is not a trial of long-term daily use of 200 mg or 400 mg.
Verification status: Met
Materials actually read: Summary reading: the specified locations in the retained 3124 stored summary were actually read. Full articles/PDFs, appendices, registrations/protocols, raw data and corrections were not read in this work.
Why unverified: The planned route, amount and timing in the actual manuscript have been linked to correction QA02. This is distinct from the N06 question of whether everyone actually absorbed the planned amount.
Reason for missing information: There is no gap in the planned specifications. Actual administration/absorption and the optimal dose remain separately unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Administration specifications, oral route, timing before the start/at 90 km, and planned total amount
Materials to obtain first: Administration specifications, oral route, timing before the start/at 90 km, and planned total amount
Further research: Fix the timing within the same race, and design studies directly comparing administration timing/doses as separate questions.
Remaining uncertainty: There is no gap in the planned specifications. Actual administration/absorption and the optimal dose remain separately unverified.
Conditions for verification: Link the plan for 100 mg 0.5–1 hour before the start and 100 mg at 90 km to exposure in one race.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent the exploratory search term of 400 mg or a daily dose from replacing the actual intervention.
Application exceptions: The planned total and each person's actual intake are separate; do not label this a long-term 200 mg/day trial.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction markers and test adaptations are self-designed; M03 §3.2.1–3.2.4; details of dose, duration and effect modification are self-designed

Related sources S01

N06 · Did everyone actually receive the planned second dose?

Current findings: Omission of the second dose and vomiting were reported, and analgesic use also occurred. The current records cannot verify that every runner fully received or absorbed the two planned capsules.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: Summary reading: the specified locations in the retained 3124 stored summary were actually read. Full articles/PDFs, appendices, registrations/protocols, raw data and corrections were not read in this work.
Why unverified: The occurrence of deviations is preserved, but individual actual administered amounts and the scope of their analytical handling could not be verified.
Reason for missing information: The number of participants with omitted doses and their timing, individual actual amounts, absorbed amounts, and prespecified analyses of adherence/assignment effects are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Individual administration/omission, vomiting, time available for absorption, adherence and analytical-handling records
Materials to obtain first: Individual administration/omission, vomiting, time available for absorption, adherence and analytical-handling records
Further research: Record administration/deviations for each individual and analyze prespecified effects of assignment separately from effects of adherence.
Remaining uncertainty: The number of participants with omitted doses and their timing, individual actual amounts, absorbed amounts, and prespecified analyses of adherence/assignment effects are unverified.
Conditions for verification: Link verified omissions/vomiting to gaps in actual administered amounts and limits on assessing their analytical impact.
Why this condition is needed: Treating the planned amount as actual exposure in everyone changes the comparison for the selected intervention.
Application exceptions: Do not estimate the amount absorbed after vomiting or the number of participants with omitted doses if the manuscript does not provide them.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction markers and test adaptations are self-designed; M03 §3.2.3, M08 §8.2.2–8.2.3; self-developed application; M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; self-developed application

Related sources S01

N07 · Are powder mass and active amount distinguished for the color-matched placebo?

Current findings: The placebo contains 95 mg maltodextrin and 5 mg of 10% beta-carotene powder per capsule. The retained nominal calculation is 0.5 mg/capsule of active beta-carotene, not an active amount of 5 mg. Race diet and usual care are not standardized.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: Summary reading: the specified locations in the retained 3124 stored summary were actually read. Full articles/PDFs, appendices, registrations/protocols, raw data and corrections were not read in this work.
Why unverified: The reported ingredients and historical nominal calculation were verified, but measured batch content and physiological equivalence/inertness comparisons were not.
Reason for missing information: The placebo's actual batch content, physiological effects/nonspecific differences, and balance of care are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Placebo batch/ingredients, maltodextrin and beta-carotene powder specifications, and assessment of physiological effects
Materials to obtain first: Placebo batch/ingredients, maltodextrin and beta-carotene powder specifications, and assessment of physiological effects
Further research: Disclose the control capsule's ingredients/color and measured content, and assess nonspecific differences from the intervention.
Remaining uncertainty: The placebo's actual batch content, physiological effects/nonspecific differences, and balance of care are unverified.
Conditions for verification: Attribute the reported 95 mg/5 mg composition and historical nominal 0.5 mg separately, without assuming physiological equivalence.
Why this condition is needed: The actual comparison can be explained only after identifying the placebo and its nominal powder mass.
Application exceptions: Do not read 5 mg of 10% powder as 5 mg of active beta-carotene, or convert a nominal calculation into measured content.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction markers and test adaptations are self-designed; M03 §3.2.3, M08 §8.2.2–8.2.3; self-developed application

Related sources S01

N08 · Are the diet, usual-care and analgesic differences actually internally consistent?

Current findings: Race diet and usual care were not standardized. For medication use during the race in the placebo group, the text records 6 participants, Table 1 records 36% of 14 participants, and the sum across medication types is 5 participants. QA04 leaves these unreconciled and preserves reconciled count=null.
Verification status: Conflicting information
Materials actually read: Summary reading: the specified locations in the retained 3124 stored summary were actually read. Full articles/PDFs, appendices, registrations/protocols, raw data and corrections were not read in this work.
Why unverified: The original text, table and total referring to the same medication-user count could not be verified as consistent. This is an internal conflict in the source data, not a difference between analytical estimates.
Reason for missing information: A consistent medication-user count, whether the same people overlap, balance of common care/diet, and analytical handling are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Diet/race care in both groups, medication types/participant counts, original table/text and corrections, and analytical handling
Materials to obtain first: Diet/race care in both groups, medication types/participant counts, original table/text and corrections, and analytical handling
Further research: Cross-check individual concomitant-use data against the original table, and preplan recording/handling of common care and rescue treatment.
Remaining uncertainty: A consistent medication-user count, whether the same people overlap, balance of common care/diet, and analytical handling are unverified.
Conditions for verification: Preserve the verified lack of standardized care and the conflicting placebo medication-user counts, and leave the unresolved value as null.
Why this condition is needed: Prevents concomitant use and internal data conflicts from being attributed to B2's contribution.
Application exceptions: If the text, table and sum across medication types differ, do not select one or calculate a correction.
Referenced methods: M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; status distinctions are self-designed; M03 §3.2.3, M08 §8.2.2–8.2.3; self-developed application; M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; self-developed application

Related sources S01

N09 · Has the randomized title been distinguished from actual alternating allocation?

Current findings: Actual allocation alternated by order of arrival at registration; it was not a random sequence. This differs from the randomized wording in the S04 conference title; QA03 records randomized=false according to the detailed Methods of the original journal article.
Verification status: Met
Materials actually read: Summary reading: the specified locations in the retained 3124 stored summary were actually read. Full articles/PDFs, appendices, registrations/protocols, raw data and corrections were not read in this work.
Why unverified: The actual design identity was attributed to the retained detailed methods/corrections. Meeting the allocation-identity condition does not mean confounding was controlled or that this was a confirmatory RCT.
Reason for missing information: The identity of alternating allocation has been linked, but limitations in concealment and baseline balance/adjustment remain.
Required materials and conditions: Allocation by registration-arrival order, sequence generation, baseline balance and related report identities
Materials to obtain first: Allocation by registration-arrival order, sequence generation, baseline balance and related report identities
Further research: Subsequent comparisons should disclose the random sequence and its actual implementation, and assess balance in baseline racing ability.
Remaining uncertainty: The identity of alternating allocation has been linked, but limitations in concealment and baseline balance/adjustment remain.
Conditions for verification: Label alternating allocation and its predictability according to the current detailed allocation record.
Why this condition is needed: The word randomized in the title cannot replace the nonrandom procedure in the detailed Methods.
Application exceptions: Do not remove nonrandomized data or treat verification of design identity as satisfaction of causality requirements.
Referenced methods: M08 §8.1–8.2.3; self-developed application; M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; status distinctions are self-designed

Related sources S01 S04

N10 · Was it impossible to predict or change the allocation sequence?

Current findings: Alternating allocation by registration-arrival order is predictable. Whether allocation concealment was effectively implemented has not been verified in the current records.
Verification status: Unverified
Materials actually read: Summary reading: the specified locations in the retained 3124 stored summary were actually read. Full articles/PDFs, appendices, registrations/protocols, raw data and corrections were not read in this work.
Why unverified: The allocation procedure is known, but the information needed to assess concealment implementation/effectiveness is unverified.
Reason for missing information: Registration personnel, sequence storage/exposure, the possibility of allocation changes and concealment-audit information are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Allocation personnel/concealment implementation, registration process, any breaches and baseline characteristics
Materials to obtain first: Allocation personnel/concealment implementation, registration process, any breaches and baseline characteristics
Further research: Separate responsibility for sequence generation, storage and implementation from registration procedures, including an audit of the allocation process.
Remaining uncertainty: Registration personnel, sequence storage/exposure, the possibility of allocation changes and concealment-audit information are unverified.
Conditions for verification: Record the allocation actually verified separately from the unverified effectiveness of concealment.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent the predictability of alternating allocation from being automatically offset by assumed successful concealment.
Application exceptions: Unverified concealment information does not establish the magnitude of concealment failure or the occurrence of manipulation.
Referenced methods: M08 §8.1–8.2.3; self-developed application

Related sources S01

N11 · Are participant/onsite-researcher blinding and noticing urine color distinguished?

Current findings: Blinding of participants and onsite researchers was reported. Urine color was noticed by 3 participants in the B2 group and 1 in the placebo group, so fully maintained blinding cannot be verified. The actual time-recording assessors and checks of maintained blinding are also unverified.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: Summary reading: the specified locations in the retained 3124 stored summary were actually read. Full articles/PDFs, appendices, registrations/protocols, raw data and corrections were not read in this work.
Why unverified: The blinding report and cases of awareness were verified, but sufficient information on actual maintenance and the assessment stage is lacking.
Reason for missing information: The timing of awareness, allocation guesses, and the relationship of assessors to time recording/blinding are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Blinding implementation, timing of noticing urine color, allocation guesses, assessors and checks of maintained blinding
Materials to obtain first: Blinding implementation, timing of noticing urine color, allocation guesses, assessors and checks of maintained blinding
Further research: Collect allocation guesses and the timing of awareness, and specify blinding of those recording race times.
Remaining uncertainty: The timing of awareness, allocation guesses, and the relationship of assessors to time recording/blinding are unverified.
Conditions for verification: Preserve reported blinding together with unverified maintenance and cases of awareness.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent the mere presence of a color-matched placebo from being used to claim perfect blinding.
Application exceptions: Record whether blinding was maintained even for an objective time outcome, but do not estimate the magnitude of time-related bias solely from urine-color awareness.
Referenced methods: M08 Table 8.2.a, M03 §3.2.4; self-developed application; M03 §3.2.3, M08 §8.2.2–8.2.3; self-developed application

Related sources S01

N12 · What denominators do 44 participants, 37 participants and 32 participants each represent?

Current findings: Allocation/starting counts were 22 participants in the B2 group and 22 participants in the placebo group; finishing counts were 20 participants and 17 participants; and complete-data counts in Table 1 were 18 participants and 14 participants. The actual denominator for the finishing-time means is 32 participants, not 44 participants or 37 participants.
Verification status: Met
Materials actually read: Summary reading: the specified locations in the retained 3124 stored summary were actually read. Full articles/PDFs, appendices, registrations/protocols, raw data and corrections were not read in this work.
Why unverified: The group-specific stages and denominators for the Table 1 means are clearly linked. They have not been renamed randomized n.
Reason for missing information: There is no gap in the identity of the flow counts. Reasons for losses and analysis of the overall effect remain addressed in N13.
Required materials and conditions: Group-specific allocation/starting, finishing and data-completeness flow, and the identity of the Table 1 analysis
Materials to obtain first: Group-specific allocation/starting, finishing and data-completeness flow, and the identity of the Table 1 analysis
Further research: Disclose the full participant flow and the actual analysis denominator for each outcome using consistent identifiers.
Remaining uncertainty: There is no gap in the identity of the flow counts. Reasons for losses and analysis of the overall effect remain addressed in N13.
Conditions for verification: Link the stages of 22/22 starters, 20/17 finishers and 18/14 with complete data.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent starter or finisher counts from being substituted as the denominators for the table's means.
Application exceptions: Do not rename alternately allocated participant counts as randomized n or label the results as means for 37 participants.
Referenced methods: M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; design-specific adaptations are self-designed; M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; self-developed application

Related sources S01

N13 · How were nonfinishing and incomplete data after finishing handled?

Current findings: The retained records distinguish 7 nonfinishers among 44 starters from 5 finishers with incomplete data. Historical arithmetic gives group-specific nonfinisher counts of 2 participants/5 participants and incomplete-data counts after finishing of 2 participants/3 participants. These subtraction records are not new calculations, and the comparison of 32 participants does not recover the effect in all 44 assigned participants.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: Summary reading: the specified locations in the retained 3124 stored summary were actually read. Full articles/PDFs, appendices, registrations/protocols, raw data and corrections were not read in this work.
Why unverified: Loss stages and retained group-specific counts have been linked, but the reasons, handling and estimation of the effect of interest in all starters could not be verified.
Reason for missing information: Individual reasons for loss, analysis of all participants, handling of selection/missingness and appropriate sensitivity analyses are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Individual reasons for nonfinishing/missing data, the analysis plan for the effect in all assigned participants, and raw data
Materials to obtain first: Individual reasons for nonfinishing/missing data, the analysis plan for the effect in all assigned participants, and raw data
Further research: Define the prespecified effect of interest including nonfinishers and missing-data sensitivity analyses, and report the full data flow.
Remaining uncertainty: Individual reasons for loss, analysis of all participants, handling of selection/missingness and appropriate sensitivity analyses are unverified.
Conditions for verification: Separate nonfinishing from incomplete data among finishers, and retain the unverified status of estimation for all starters.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent different reasons for loss from being combined or selected completers from being interpreted as the effect in all assigned participants.
Application exceptions: Do not arbitrarily assign times to nonfinishers without finishing times; retain historical subtraction values as separate calculation records.
Referenced methods: M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; design-specific adaptations are self-designed; M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; self-developed application

Related sources S01

N14 · For what distance, at what time point and with what device was time measured?

Current findings: The outcome is finishing time (in hours) at completion of one 161.3 km ultramarathon race. It is the value for study completers in Table 1, not a standardized laboratory time trial or a 400 m recovery run. Timing-device and recording/adjudication details are unverified.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: Summary reading: the specified locations in the retained 3124 stored summary were actually read. Full articles/PDFs, appendices, registrations/protocols, raw data and corrections were not read in this work.
Why unverified: The endpoint, distance, unit and completion time point were verified, but actual recording/verification procedures are unverified within the retained scope.
Reason for missing information: The timing device, recording personnel/adjudication, measurement error and adjustment for baseline course ability are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Official race-completion time, timing device/adjudication, course conditions, record verification and Table 1 location
Materials to obtain first: Official race-completion time, timing device/adjudication, course conditions, record verification and Table 1 location
Further research: Disclose official timing records and course/adjudication procedures, and audit measurement errors/differences.
Remaining uncertainty: The timing device, recording personnel/adjudication, measurement error and adjustment for baseline course ability are unverified.
Conditions for verification: Distinguish the time unit at actual 161.3 km race completion from unverified recording procedures.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent field-race finishing time from being treated as equivalent to a laboratory test or recovery run.
Application exceptions: If device/adjudication details are unverified, do not declare measurement complete merely because the outcome is objective.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are self-designed; M08 Table 8.2.a, M03 §3.2.4; self-developed application

Related sources S01

N15 · Was finishing time a prespecified primary efficacy endpoint?

Current findings: The study focuses on pain and recovery, and finishing time appears in a characteristics table. A registration/planned hierarchy establishing finishing time as a prespecified primary efficacy endpoint could not be verified.
Verification status: Unverified
Materials actually read: Summary reading: the specified locations in the retained 3124 stored summary were actually read. Full articles/PDFs, appendices, registrations/protocols, raw data and corrections were not read in this work.
Why unverified: The fact that an outcome was reported does not by itself establish a prespecified primary (1st) endpoint or confirmatory analysis.
Reason for missing information: Registration/protocol/SAP and the finishing-time hierarchy and analysis/multiple-comparison plan are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Registration/protocol/SAP, endpoint/time-point hierarchy, the table's purpose and reasons for changes
Materials to obtain first: Registration/protocol/SAP, endpoint/time-point hierarchy, the table's purpose and reasons for changes
Further research: Fix the primary/supporting role of finishing time, testing hierarchy and handling of multiple comparisons before the race.
Remaining uncertainty: Registration/protocol/SAP and the finishing-time hierarchy and analysis/multiple-comparison plan are unverified.
Conditions for verification: Preserve the recovery focus of the study and the location of time in the characteristics table, and indicate that the prespecified hierarchy is unverified.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent time in a characteristics table from being relabeled as a prespecified primary (1st) efficacy outcome.
Application exceptions: Do not convert failure to acquire the plan into confirmed selective reporting or lack of registration.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are self-designed; M08 Table 8.2.a, M04 §4.6.3; self-developed application

Related sources S01

N16 · Are the Table 1 means and dispersion measures attributed to the same population/units?

Current findings: In Table 1, the 18 B2 participants have 27.26 ± 2.36 hours and the 14 placebo participants have 27.08 ± 2.88 hours, expressed as mean±SD. This SD is not a between-group CI or SE.
Verification status: Met
Materials actually read: Summary reading: the specified locations in the retained 3124 stored summary were actually read. Full articles/PDFs, appendices, registrations/protocols, raw data and corrections were not read in this work.
Why unverified: The original means, dispersion notation and group-specific denominators were accurately linked to the retained results/inputs. Meeting the numerical-attribution condition is separate from establishing causal efficacy.
Reason for missing information: There is no gap in the identity of the original table summaries. Original between-group CI/P/adjusted values remain unverified in N18.
Required materials and conditions: Group-specific complete-data n, mean time, SD notation, and original table/units
Materials to obtain first: Group-specific complete-data n, mean time, SD notation, and original table/units
Further research: Disclose the dispersion definition for each outcome together with precise numerical values/denominators.
Remaining uncertainty: There is no gap in the identity of the original table summaries. Original between-group CI/P/adjusted values remain unverified in N18.
Conditions for verification: Preserve 27.26±2.36 hours for B2 n=18 and 27.08±2.88 hours for placebo n=14 as mean±SD.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent SD from being read as SE or CI, or linked to a different denominator.
Application exceptions: Do not use mean±SD as individual differences/between-group CI, or extract precision beyond the table summaries.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are self-designed; M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; design-specific adaptations are self-designed

Related sources S01

N17 · Has nonsignificance for time been kept from being converted into an effect of 0 or equivalence?

Current findings: The retained original table/manuscript states that a significant between-group difference in finishing time was not identified. Alternating allocation and selected-finisher analysis prevent this from establishing an effect of 0, equivalence or exclusion of important time benefit.
Verification status: Met
Materials actually read: Summary reading: the specified locations in the retained 3124 stored summary were actually read. Full articles/PDFs, appendices, registrations/protocols, raw data and corrections were not read in this work.
Why unverified: The nonsignificance statement and its interpretation limits were linked to the same time endpoint and preserved. This condition being met does not establish no effect.
Reason for missing information: Original exact P/CI, important-difference criteria and causal analyses are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: The original table's no-difference statement, coherent between-group estimates/intervals and a validated important-difference criterion
Materials to obtain first: The original table's no-difference statement, coherent between-group estimates/intervals and a validated important-difference criterion
Further research: Prespecify coherent between-group intervals and important-difference criteria to provide interpretation beyond significance.
Remaining uncertainty: Original exact P/CI, important-difference criteria and causal analyses are unverified.
Conditions for verification: Link the retained nonsignificant result and current interpretation limits to the same endpoint.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent nonsignificant results from being favorably omitted or expressed as definitive absence of effect.
Application exceptions: Do not obscure nonsignificance with favorable results for other recovery outcomes, or equate nonsignificance with exclusion of important benefit.
Referenced methods: M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; status distinctions are self-designed; M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; self-developed application

Related sources S01

N18 · Are author-reported between-group CI, exact P and adjusted estimates available?

Current findings: Author-reported finishing-time CI, exact P and adjusted causal effect are null in the retained stored summary. Historical t-reconstruction values are recorded separately and do not fill these original values.
Verification status: Unverified
Materials actually read: Summary reading: the specified locations in the retained 3124 stored summary were actually read. Full articles/PDFs, appendices, registrations/protocols, raw data and corrections were not read in this work.
Why unverified: The required originally reported estimates/tests and adjusted values could not be verified and cannot be replaced with existing descriptive calculations.
Reason for missing information: Author CI, exact P, adjusted model and the original estimate of the overall effect of interest are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: CI for the original time outcome, exact test P, adjusted model/estimand and results table
Materials to obtain first: CI for the original time outcome, exact test P, adjusted model/estimand and results table
Further research: Disclose the original between-group CI/P and model/denominator for the prespecified effect of interest on finishing time.
Remaining uncertainty: Author CI, exact P, adjusted model and the original estimate of the overall effect of interest are unverified.
Conditions for verification: Separate verification status for original CI, exact P and adjusted effect from historical recalculation.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent recalculated summary statistics from being used as original author reports or adjusted causal estimates.
Application exceptions: If an original value is null, do not fill the gap even when historical calculations exist.
Referenced methods: M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; design-specific adaptations are self-designed; M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; self-developed application; M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; self-developed application

Related sources S01

N19 · Are the sign and descriptive meaning of the retained mean difference preserved?

Current findings: The retained mean difference is B2−placebo +0.18 hours (+10.8 minutes); a positive value is descriptively in the slower direction. The original retained values are 0.18000000000000327 hours and 10.800000000000196 minutes. This is arithmetic on selected-sample means, not a new estimate of causal harm or significant delay.
Verification status: Met
Materials actually read: Summary reading: the specified locations in the retained 3124 stored summary were actually read. Full articles/PDFs, appendices, registrations/protocols, raw data and corrections were not read in this work.
Why unverified: The inputs, direction and original values of the retained calculation were accurately distinguished from the rounded reader-facing expression. No new calculation was performed in this work.
Reason for missing information: The causal difference for all assigned participants/with adjustment and its original interval are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Historical arithmetic inputs, B2−placebo direction, original mean-difference values/limits and calculation provenance
Materials to obtain first: Historical arithmetic inputs, B2−placebo direction, original mean-difference values/limits and calculation provenance
Further research: Subsequent research should report the prespecified direction and between-group estimates/intervals for the overall effect of interest.
Remaining uncertainty: The causal difference for all assigned participants/with adjustment and its original interval are unverified.
Conditions for verification: Specify the direction of the historical +0.18 hours (+10.8 minutes) and its limitation as a descriptive value for a selected sample.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent a positive time difference from being converted into new causal harm or significant delay.
Application exceptions: Perform no new calculations in this work, and retain both rounded displays and the original stored floating-point values.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are self-designed; M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; self-developed application; M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; status distinctions are self-designed

Related sources S01

N20 · Can the assumptions of the equal-variance t-reconstructed interval be verified?

Current findings: The historical pooled-variance unpaired t model is a descriptive model for the selected sample. The retained 95% CI is [−1.7108254419152404, 2.0708254419152468] hours, P = 0.8471597784689339, SE = 0.925843873613083 hours, and df = 30. Equal variance is an explicit calculation assumption, not a verified author-used t subtype. It does not remedy missingness/confounding.
Verification status: Met
Materials actually read: Summary reading: the specified locations in the retained 3124 stored summary were actually read. Full articles/PDFs, appendices, registrations/protocols, raw data and corrections were not read in this work.
Why unverified: The historical calculation's model, values and assumptions were linked separately from the unverified original CI. This meets a calculation-preservation condition, not a causal-precision condition.
Reason for missing information: The original author interval, t subtype and a coherent estimate accounting for all assigned participants/confounding are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Original retained pooled-calculation values, inputs, assumptions, selected sample and distinction from original reporting
Materials to obtain first: Original retained pooled-calculation values, inputs, assumptions, selected sample and distinction from original reporting
Further research: Disclose participant-level data and a prespecified model to examine direct estimation that accounts for selection/nonrandomization limitations.
Remaining uncertainty: The original author interval, t subtype and a coherent estimate accounting for all assigned participants/confounding are unverified.
Conditions for verification: Attribute the existing CI/P/SE/df solely to an assumption-dependent descriptive model.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to preserve existing arithmetic without promoting it to an original CI or causal precision.
Application exceptions: Do not establish that the authors used the equal-variance t subtype. Reconstruction does not remedy missingness/confounding.
Referenced methods: M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; design-specific adaptations are self-designed; M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; self-developed application; M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; self-developed application

Related sources S01

N21 · Were the unequal-variance sensitivity results also preserved as a separate model?

Current findings: The historical Welch unpaired t sensitivity analysis uses an unequal-variance model. The retained 95% CI is [−1.7761840334977923, 2.136184033497799] hours, P = 0.8512055048234594, SE = 0.9496732938644559 hours, and df = 24.925799135526574. These results use assumptions different from pooled analysis; they are neither a source-data conflict nor author CI.
Verification status: Met
Materials actually read: Summary reading: the specified locations in the retained 3124 stored summary were actually read. Full articles/PDFs, appendices, registrations/protocols, raw data and corrections were not read in this work.
Why unverified: Both models were preserved and attributed to their respective assumptions; the conclusion was not changed through new recalculation/model selection.
Reason for missing information: Gaps concerning selection/confounding, the original author interval and the overall effect of interest remain.
Required materials and conditions: Retained Welch values, assumptions, inputs, differences from pooled results and verification status of the original interval
Materials to obtain first: Retained Welch values, assumptions, inputs, differences from pooled results and verification status of the original interval
Further research: Prespecify variance assumptions and sensitivity analyses for missingness/confounding, and report model-specific results transparently.
Remaining uncertainty: Gaps concerning selection/confounding, the original author interval and the overall effect of interest remain.
Conditions for verification: Link the historical Welch CI/P/SE/df to that model and explain the remaining causal limitations.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent model selection that presents only favorable intervals or relabels them as author CI.
Application exceptions: Do not classify differences between sensitivity-model results as a conflict within the same source data. Perform no new recalculation.
Referenced methods: M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; status distinctions are self-designed; M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; self-developed application; M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; self-developed application

Related sources S01

N22 · Is there a basis for deciding how much faster a time constitutes important benefit?

Current findings: A validated important difference (MCID) for the same race/runners is null. The retained record has equivalence_demonstrated=false, and reconstructed intervals allow both faster and slower times. NNT is null because this continuous-time/selected descriptive comparison has no eligible binary-risk/time estimate.
Verification status: Unverified
Materials actually read: Summary reading: the specified locations in the retained 3124 stored summary were actually read. Full articles/PDFs, appendices, registrations/protocols, raw data and corrections were not read in this work.
Why unverified: The relationship between an important difference and a coherent original interval could not be verified, so exclusion of important benefit or equivalence cannot be claimed.
Reason for missing information: Justified important-difference and equivalence thresholds and a prespecified precision design are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Justified important-difference and equivalence thresholds for the same race/population, and appropriate original estimation intervals
Materials to obtain first: Justified important-difference and equivalence thresholds for the same race/population, and appropriate original estimation intervals
Further research: Justify an important difference in the runner/race context and prespecify a precision/equivalence design incorporating it.
Remaining uncertainty: Justified important-difference and equivalence thresholds and a prespecified precision design are unverified.
Conditions for verification: Distinguish the unverified important difference, unestablished equivalence and inapplicability of NNT.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent CX in the existing score or nonsignificance from being used to exclude important benefit.
Application exceptions: Do not create universal thresholds for minutes, participant numbers or duration, or force NNT onto a continuous-time question.
Referenced methods: M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; self-developed application; M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are self-designed

Related sources S01

N23 · Is a comparative effect accounting for baseline racing ability and selection verified?

Current findings: Adjustment for baseline racing ability on an equivalent course and adjusted causal estimation have not been verified. The mean difference from predictable alternating allocation and selected-completer analysis cannot be regarded as estimating the intervention effect in all starters.
Verification status: Unverified
Materials actually read: Summary reading: the specified locations in the retained 3124 stored summary were actually read. Full articles/PDFs, appendices, registrations/protocols, raw data and corrections were not read in this work.
Why unverified: Baseline balance/adjustment and full-analysis data needed for the causal effect of interest could not be verified.
Reason for missing information: Baseline racing ability, balance in nutrition/care, covariates/models and the effect in all assigned participants are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Baseline racing ability, experience on the same course, nutritional/care covariates and prespecified adjustment/analysis of all participants
Materials to obtain first: Baseline racing ability, experience on the same course, nutritional/care covariates and prespecified adjustment/analysis of all participants
Further research: Measure racing ability before allocation and prespecify the effect of interest and handling of covariates/losses.
Remaining uncertainty: Baseline racing ability, balance in nutrition/care, covariates/models and the effect in all assigned participants are unverified.
Conditions for verification: Link the unverified adjusted effect and baseline balance to limitations on the current effect of interest.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent the selected-completer mean difference from being read as the effect of B2 in all assigned participants.
Application exceptions: Lack of adjustment does not establish the magnitude of bias; do not adjust values using a new model.
Referenced methods: M08 §8.1–8.2.3; self-developed application; M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; self-developed application

Related sources S01

N24 · Have the official registration, protocol and SAP been compared with the original report?

Current findings: S01 registration_id is null; registration was not reported in the original at the time, and the external record was recorded as unverified. Ethics approval or the existence of an article is not reading the full registration, protocol or SAP. Access to the relevant external materials was not attempted in this work; they were not acquired or read.
Verification status: Unverified
Materials actually read: Summary reading: the specified locations in the retained 3124 stored summary were actually read. Full articles/PDFs, appendices, registrations/protocols, raw data and corrections were not read in this work.
Why unverified: Full texts needed to actually compare the prospective plan with the original results were not acquired/read in this work. This differs from absence of registration or confirmed selective reporting.
Reason for missing information: Original registration identity, full text, plan version/date and endpoint/analysis change history are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Full original registration/protocol/SAP, versions/dates and endpoint/analysis comparisons
Materials to obtain first: Full original registration/protocol/SAP, versions/dates and endpoint/analysis comparisons
Further research: Disclose original plans and change histories, and compare outcome-specific plan adherence/reasons for changes.
Remaining uncertainty: Original registration identity, full text, plan version/date and endpoint/analysis change history are unverified.
Conditions for verification: Indicate the scope of plans acquired/read and the scope not compared according to the actions actually taken in this work.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent ethics approval or study existence from being treated as reading the registration/plans.
Application exceptions: S01 registration_id=null does not prove absence of an external registration that is currently unverified.
Referenced methods: Material collection/selection principles in M04 §4.5–4.6; distinctions between access and reading and the hyperlink contract are self-designed; M04 §4.5, §4.6.3; limits on the current material conversion follow the user-defined scope and self-designed rules; M08 Table 8.2.a, M04 §4.6.3; self-developed application

Related sources S01

N25 · Are the conference title and original journal article being counted as independent replications?

Current findings: The HTML/PDF/index versions of the S01 original article are the same report. S04 is a probable conference companion on the same investigators/intervention topic, but full-text/exact-identity comparison is incomplete. It is not counted as a separate cohort or independent replication; randomized in the conference title differs from the alternating allocation in S01.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: Summary reading: the specified locations in the retained 3124 stored summary were actually read. Full articles/PDFs, appendices, registrations/protocols, raw data and corrections were not read in this work.
Why unverified: The probable family link and exclusion of duplicate counting were verified, but the exact identity of the full conference text is unverified.
Reason for missing information: The full S04 abstract and exact family matching of participants/time points are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: S01/S04 original reports, full conference text, cohort/time-point/participant linkage and design wording
Materials to obtain first: S01/S04 original reports, full conference text, cohort/time-point/participant linkage and design wording
Further research: Link participants, registrations and time points across related reports, and disclose a map of unique families and outcome locations.
Remaining uncertainty: The full S04 abstract and exact family matching of participants/time points are unverified.
Conditions for verification: Preserve probable-companion status, lack of acquired full text and conflicting design wording in the title; do not count it as a separate replication.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent a companion report from the same investigators/intervention from being counted as two race trials.
Application exceptions: Do not overstate a probable same-family link as a confirmed finding about participant independence/overlap.
Referenced methods: Distinction between studies and reports in M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2; cohort/outcome linkage is a self-developed application; M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; status distinctions are self-designed; M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2, M15 §15.3.1; self-developed application

Related sources S01 S04

N26 · Are positive signals for pain/400 m recovery being substituted as time evidence?

Current findings: Favorable signals for some pain and 400 m recovery results from the same study are preserved. These outcomes differ from finishing time for the 161.3 km race and do not replace the nonsignificant finishing-time result. CK and vitamin status are also separate endpoints.
Verification status: Met
Materials actually read: Summary reading: the specified locations in the retained 3124 stored summary were actually read. Full articles/PDFs, appendices, registrations/protocols, raw data and corrections were not read in this work.
Why unverified: Favorable adjacent outcomes and the boundary of the selected time outcome were preserved together according to the manuscript. No new numerical values or intervals for positive signals were created.
Reason for missing information: This table does not independently adjudicate recovery efficacy. Precise numerical values/hierarchy for those signals were not provided in this current summary.
Required materials and conditions: Endpoint-specific results, time points, tests/hierarchy and finishing-time separation records from the same study
Materials to obtain first: Endpoint-specific results, time points, tests/hierarchy and finishing-time separation records from the same study
Further research: Prespecify race performance and post-race recovery separately, and report endpoint-specific estimates/intervals and multiple comparisons.
Remaining uncertainty: This table does not independently adjudicate recovery efficacy. Precise numerical values/hierarchy for those signals were not provided in this current summary.
Conditions for verification: Distinguish the endpoints of some recovery/pain signals from the actual time outcome.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to preserve favorable results without obscuring the no-difference result for the selected finishing-time outcome.
Application exceptions: Do not add numbers/CI to recovery signals for which the currently retained manuscript supplies no numerical values.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are self-designed; M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; status distinctions are self-designed; M03 §3.2.4; self-defined extension boundary

Related sources S01

N27 · Does time to exhaustion with a combination product in nonathletes answer the single-ingredient B2 race-time question?

Current findings: S02 Ex PLUS is a combination of multiple vitamins, minerals, taurine and inositol. It involved 32 healthy nonathletes, a 28-day intervention and a 14-day washout, testing time to exhaustion at 85% VO2max. Do not combine it as field-race finishing-time evidence for single-ingredient B2.
Verification status: Met
Materials actually read: Summary reading: the specified locations in the retained 3124 stored summary were actually read. Full articles/PDFs, appendices, registrations/protocols, raw data and corrections were not read in this work.
Why unverified: The actual differences in ingredients, population, duration and endpoint in the current materials have been linked, allowing the exclusion role to be explained. This status does not confirm Ex PLUS or B2 efficacy.
Reason for missing information: A direct comparison in the same race and independent replication of single-ingredient B2 have not been verified. Independent verification of the reported registration NCT05586295 is recorded as false.
Required materials and conditions: S02 ingredient table, population, exposure/washout, actual performance test and registration/original results
Materials to obtain first: S02 ingredient table, population, exposure/washout, actual performance test and registration/original results
Further research: Design a direct comparison in the same ultramarathon population differing only in single-ingredient B2.
Remaining uncertainty: A direct comparison in the same race and independent replication of single-ingredient B2 have not been verified. Independent verification of the reported registration NCT05586295 is recorded as false.
Conditions for verification: Record the boundary of a combination product in 32 healthy nonathletes, 28 days, a 14-day washout and time to exhaustion at 85% VO2max.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent differences in composition, population and endpoint in indirect evidence from being combined as replications of single-ingredient B2.
Application exceptions: Do not isolate the B2 component's effect from a combination product in nonathletes or convert it into race finishing time.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.1; detailed population criteria are self-designed; M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction markers and test adaptations are self-designed; M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are self-designed; M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2, M15 §15.3.1; self-developed application

Related sources S02

N28 · Have the swimming article's eligibility and numerical values been verified?

Current findings: S05 is a candidate identified through the title and bibliography of a 1984 study of B2 supplementation, nutritional status and performance in elite swimmers. Incomplete access to the original/DOI resolution at the time prevented verification of age, exact endpoint, dose, design and effect/CI. The external original remains unread in the current work.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: Summary reading: the specified locations in the retained 3124 stored summary were actually read. Full articles/PDFs, appendices, registrations/protocols, raw data and corrections were not read in this work.
Why unverified: Bibliographic identity is preserved, but the eligibility and precise numerical values of the performance data are unverified.
Reason for missing information: Original-article methods/results, participant age, denominators and effect/intervals are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Full original 1984 article, age/ingredient/dose, design, performance test, denominators and effect/intervals
Materials to obtain first: Full original 1984 article, age/ingredient/dose, design, performance test, denominators and effect/intervals
Further research: In a subsequent review that acquires the original, verify the actual sport, test and population, and separate evidence according to directness.
Remaining uncertainty: Original-article methods/results, participant age, denominators and effect/intervals are unverified.
Conditions for verification: Display title/bibliographic identity separately from unverified eligibility/numerical values.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent bibliographic discovery from being promoted to a performance effect or independent replication.
Application exceptions: Do not use historical inaccessibility of the original as absence of the article/study; distinguish it from access not attempted in the current work.
Referenced methods: Material collection/selection principles in M04 §4.5–4.6; distinctions between access and reading and the hyperlink contract are self-designed; M03 §3.2.1; detailed population criteria are self-designed; M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are self-designed; M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2, M15 §15.3.1; self-developed application

Related sources S05

N29 · Have the Winters1992 population and the swimming study been separated?

Current findings: The title of S06 Winters1992 concerns B2 requirements/exercise adaptation in older women. QA01 separated it from the 1984 elite-swimming candidate. Access at the time was limited to official-index search metadata; no direct performance numbers were imported.
Verification status: Met
Materials actually read: Summary reading: the specified locations in the retained 3124 stored summary were actually read. Full articles/PDFs, appendices, registrations/protocols, raw data and corrections were not read in this work.
Why unverified: The retained population/question correction and the boundary preventing numerical transfer were linked. Verification of the original article's results was not claimed.
Reason for missing information: Exact exposure, endpoints and denominators/numerical values in the S06 original/abstract are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: S06 bibliography, original article/abstract, exercise-adaptation/nutrient-requirement endpoints and QA01 correction
Materials to obtain first: S06 bibliography, original article/abstract, exercise-adaptation/nutrient-requirement endpoints and QA01 correction
Further research: Subsequent original-source review should first verify each population, endpoint and ingredient, then extract by independent question.
Remaining uncertainty: Exact exposure, endpoints and denominators/numerical values in the S06 original/abstract are unverified.
Conditions for verification: Separate the exercise-adaptation/requirement question in older women from the elite-swimming candidate.
Why this condition is needed: Prevents a mistaken population link in exploratory queries from being carried over to numerical values from another article.
Application exceptions: Do not fill in actual performance numbers or effects solely from title verification.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.1; detailed population criteria are self-designed; M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are self-designed; M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; status distinctions are self-designed

Related sources S06 S05

N30 · Is post-exercise B2 status in adult men an effect of supplementation→time?

Current findings: S07 addresses the direction of exercise affecting B2 status in adult men. Historical access was limited to the publisher landing page, and this status response is not a direct result showing that B2 supplementation reduces race time.
Verification status: Met
Materials actually read: Summary reading: the specified locations in the retained 3124 stored summary were actually read. Full articles/PDFs, appendices, registrations/protocols, raw data and corrections were not read in this work.
Why unverified: The boundary explaining the direction and endpoint differences in the current title/facts has been linked.
Reason for missing information: Actual exposure, tests, time points and results/denominators in the original have not been verified in the current work.
Required materials and conditions: S07 original article, exposure/outcome direction, nutritional-status tests/time points and actual comparison
Materials to obtain first: S07 original article, exposure/outcome direction, nutritional-status tests/time points and actual comparison
Further research: Design the performance-improvement question separately as a comparison differing only in B2 exposure.
Remaining uncertainty: Actual exposure, tests, time points and results/denominators in the original have not been verified in the current work.
Conditions for verification: Indicate the exercise→B2 status direction shown by the current title/facts and its difference from the performance question.
Why this condition is needed: Prevents nutritional-status responses to exercise from being mixed with supplement effects on performance in the reverse direction.
Application exceptions: Do not convert facts about status endpoints into supplementation effects or clinical deficiency treatment.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction markers and test adaptations are self-designed; M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are self-designed; M03 §3.2.4; self-defined extension boundary

Related sources S07

N31 · Is the exercise challenge in women by fitness level a comparison of oral B2 versus placebo?

Current findings: The S09 female data compare exercise challenge, fitness groups and B2 status; they are not a randomized oral B2 versus placebo supplementation trial. Use of B2-containing supplements was excluded, and the original Methods registration number was recorded as NL7891. Historical access to portions of abstract/Methods copies is separate from verification of the full official registration.
Verification status: Met
Materials actually read: Summary reading: the specified locations in the retained 3124 stored summary were actually read. Full articles/PDFs, appendices, registrations/protocols, raw data and corrections were not read in this work.
Why unverified: The retained original Methods' exposure direction, exclusions and registration number were linked to their differences from the direct performance question. This does not mean the entire original/registration was read in this work.
Reason for missing information: The full official registration and complete raw data/results were not verified in this work. This is not the same single-ingredient B2 time comparison.
Required materials and conditions: S09 original abstract/Methods, exposure/exclusion criteria, results, and original location and registration of NL7891
Materials to obtain first: S09 original abstract/Methods, exposure/exclusion criteria, results, and original location and registration of NL7891
Further research: A performance-comparison question for single-ingredient B2 requires a separate intervention/control trial in the same population.
Remaining uncertainty: The full official registration and complete raw data/results were not verified in this work. This is not the same single-ingredient B2 time comparison.
Conditions for verification: Link the exclusion of B2-containing supplement use, exercise challenge, status endpoint and original NL7891 separately.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent exercise-challenge observations from being called a single-ingredient B2 supplementation trial.
Application exceptions: Verifying a registration number in the original Methods is separate from reading the full official registration.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.1; detailed population criteria are self-designed; M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction markers and test adaptations are self-designed; M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are self-designed; M04 §4.5, §4.6.3; limits on the current material conversion follow the user-defined scope and self-designed rules

Related sources S09

N32 · Has discovery of the female study's registration been distinguished from the adjacent TCTR entry?

Current findings: NL-OMON24874 and NL-OMON48355 in S10 are discovery-level candidate aliases, and the detailed official registration was inaccessible at the time. QA05 identified TCTR20190907005 as an adjacent different entry, not the female study's registration. Unverified registration details were not used to fill in the S09 methods.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: Summary reading: the specified locations in the retained 3124 stored summary were actually read. Full articles/PDFs, appendices, registrations/protocols, raw data and corrections were not read in this work.
Why unverified: The retained correction of mistaken identity has been linked, but exact comparison of official details/aliases is unverified.
Reason for missing information: Comparison of official identities, full registration/version and methods between the OMON candidates and NL7891 is unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Official full text/identity of NL7891 and OMON candidates, comparison with the original Methods, and discovery-page structure
Materials to obtain first: Official full text/identity of NL7891 and OMON candidates, comparison with the original Methods, and discovery-page structure
Further research: Compare the identities of the official registration and original article using source materials, and mark uncertain aliases.
Remaining uncertainty: Comparison of official identities, full registration/version and methods between the OMON candidates and NL7891 is unverified.
Conditions for verification: Preserve separation of the adjacent TCTR entry, nonacquisition of official details and the S09 original Methods basis.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent registration numbers in adjacent search results from being used to fill in the original study's identity/methods.
Application exceptions: OMON aliases remain at the discovery level; do not promote unread official details to verified methods.
Referenced methods: Distinction between studies and reports in M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2; cohort/outcome linkage is a self-developed application; material collection/selection principles in M04 §4.5–4.6; distinctions between access and reading and the hyperlink contract are self-designed; M04 §4.5, §4.6.3; limits on the current material conversion follow the user-defined scope and self-designed rules

Related sources S10 S09

N33 · Are repeated citations in reviews and limited searching being read as independent replication or absence of studies?

Current findings: The retained direct-comparison family is UF2016 alone, and the recorded number of verified independent replications is 0. The S08 review's repeated citation of Hoffman is not a new trial. Historical searching comprised 63 general-web queries and 3 failed native database searches, without assurance of exhaustive searching. No new search was conducted in this work.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: Summary reading: the specified locations in the retained 3124 stored summary were actually read. Full articles/PDFs, appendices, registrations/protocols, raw data and corrections were not read in this work.
Why unverified: Families/repeated citations and the actual historical search scope have been linked, but independent replication of the same question and exhaustive searching for unpublished work/corrections have not been verified.
Reason for missing information: Direct independent replication and the exhaustive status of unpublished work, registrations and corrections are unverified. This does not prove study absence or current up-to-dateness.
Required materials and conditions: Unique-family/report map, actual search records, registration/unpublished/correction scope and full review article
Materials to obtain first: Unique-family/report map, actual search records, registration/unpublished/correction scope and full review article
Further research: Subsequent reviews should transparently record the scope of searches, failures, registrations and corrections, and link independent comparisons addressing the same question.
Remaining uncertainty: Direct independent replication and the exhaustive status of unpublished work, registrations and corrections are unverified. This does not prove study absence or current up-to-dateness.
Conditions for verification: Display the single direct family, unverified independent replication, repeated citations in reviews and search limitations together.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent one family and an incomplete search from being converted into replication success/failure or 0 studies worldwide.
Application exceptions: The 63 web queries and 3 failures are historical records, not new successful searches or current exhaustive verification.
Referenced methods: Distinction between studies and reports in M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2; cohort/outcome linkage is a self-developed application; M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; status distinctions are self-designed; M04 §4.5, §4.6.3; limits on the current material conversion follow the user-defined scope and self-designed rules; M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2, M15 §15.3.1; self-developed application

Related sources S01 S04 S08

N34 · What is the scope of foundation/public support and no-conflict declarations?

Current findings: S01 records support from the Western States Endurance Run Foundation, Rossi Family Foundation and VA resources/facilities, and the authors' declaration of no competing interests. Support roles, all donor provenance and product provision are unverified. Historical I2 is not certification of independent replication, external review or absence of influence.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: Summary reading: the specified locations in the retained 3124 stored summary were actually read. Full articles/PDFs, appendices, registrations/protocols, raw data and corrections were not read in this work.
Why unverified: The level at which funding/declarations were verified is preserved, but information covering the full scope of independence is lacking.
Reason for missing information: Support roles, donors, product provision and the existence of independent study families/external review are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Funding/product provision, donor provenance, support roles, author declarations/employment and family map
Materials to obtain first: Funding/product provision, donor provenance, support roles, author declarations/employment and family map
Further research: Disclose support roles, product provision, all interests and linkage to independent study families.
Remaining uncertainty: Support roles, donors, product provision and the existence of independent study families/external review are unverified.
Conditions for verification: Explain actual funding/declarations and the boundaries of unverified support information.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent reported declarations from being used as proof of external review, absence of bias or independent replication.
Application exceptions: Do not fill gaps concerning donors, product provision or roles in foundation/public support with an assumption of no corporate influence.
Referenced methods: Chamgap's own independence/attribution criteria. The official methods sections in this pilot do not validate every detail of this item; distinction between studies and reports in M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2; cohort/outcome linkage is a self-developed application

Related sources S01

N35 · What can be concluded about vomiting after the 90 km dose?

Current findings: The original record reports that two participants in the B2 group vomited within 1 hour after the 90 km dose. The temporal relationship of an event after dosing is preserved, but B2 causation and comparative risk/incidence are not established.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: Summary reading: the specified locations in the retained 3124 stored summary were actually read. Full articles/PDFs, appendices, registrations/protocols, raw data and corrections were not read in this work.
Why unverified: The participant count and temporal signal were verified, but comparative ascertainment/denominators, recovery/re-exposure and alternative explanations were not sufficiently verified.
Reason for missing information: Systematic harm denominators, equivalent placebo ascertainment, discontinuation/recovery/re-exposure and alternative explanations/concomitant use during the race are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Number of participants with vomiting, onset/recovery, administration/discontinuation/re-exposure, alternative causes, and placebo ascertainment/denominators
Materials to obtain first: Number of participants with vomiting, onset/recovery, administration/discontinuation/re-exposure, alternative causes, and placebo ascertainment/denominators
Further research: Systematically collect exposure/event timing, discontinuation/recovery, alternative explanations and concomitant use, and plan comparable harm analyses.
Remaining uncertainty: Systematic harm denominators, equivalent placebo ascertainment, discontinuation/recovery/re-exposure and alternative explanations/concomitant use during the race are unverified.
Conditions for verification: Preserve the record of 2 participants in the B2 group within 1 hour after administration at 90 km as a temporal signal.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to separate the occurrence of an event after dosing from comparative risk/causation.
Application exceptions: Do not infer the amount absorbed after vomiting or other causes, and do not convert 2 participants into an incidence rate.
Referenced methods: M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; self-developed application; M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; detailed distinctions are self-designed; design-specific harm questions in M19 §19.2; details of temporal relationships are self-designed; design considerations in M19 §19.2.2–19.2.4; detailed confounding records are self-designed; Chamgap's own interpretation boundary. Informed by M19 principles, not execution of an official causality tool

Related sources S01

N36 · Do the 3 participants versus 1 participant noticing urine color represent harm incidence?

Current findings: The retained counts of participants who noticed urine color are 3 in the B2 group and 1 in the placebo group. This record signals a limitation in maintained blinding; it does not establish participant-level incidence of systematically collected adverse events or clinical harm.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: Summary reading: the specified locations in the retained 3124 stored summary were actually read. Full articles/PDFs, appendices, registrations/protocols, raw data and corrections were not read in this work.
Why unverified: The awareness record was verified, but actual ascertainment denominators/definitions, timing and information for clinical-harm interpretation are unverified.
Reason for missing information: Awareness-ascertainment denominators, timing, relationships to allocation guesses/unblinding and clinical-event classification are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Definition/timing of awareness, participant counts, ascertainment scope, actual denominators in both groups and blinding checks
Materials to obtain first: Definition/timing of awareness, participant counts, ascertainment scope, actual denominators in both groups and blinding checks
Further research: Collect awareness/allocation guesses identically in both groups and disclose ascertainment denominators and onset timing.
Remaining uncertainty: Awareness-ascertainment denominators, timing, relationships to allocation guesses/unblinding and clinical-event classification are unverified.
Conditions for verification: Link the report of 3 participants versus 1 participant to limits on interpreting blinding maintenance/safety.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent awareness counts from being converted into systematic adverse-event incidence or a confirmed proportion with allocation unblinded.
Application exceptions: Do not automatically substitute the table's time-analysis denominator or the starter denominator for the awareness-ascertainment denominator.
Referenced methods: M08 Table 8.2.a, M03 §3.2.4; self-developed application; M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; self-developed application; M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; detailed distinctions are self-designed

Related sources S01

N37 · Were adverse events, serious events and discontinuations due to harm systematically counted?

Current findings: Group-specific denominators and ascertainment scope for systematic adverse events, serious adverse events and discontinuations due to harm have not been verified. The existence of vomiting/color-awareness reports is distinct from complete ascertainment or absence of events.
Verification status: Unverified
Materials actually read: Summary reading: the specified locations in the retained 3124 stored summary were actually read. Full articles/PDFs, appendices, registrations/protocols, raw data and corrections were not read in this work.
Why unverified: The required systematic definitions, ascertainment and exposure/loss/participant-level denominators could not be verified. Unverified information was not converted into 0 events.
Reason for missing information: AE/SAE/discontinuation definitions, actual group-specific denominators/durations, ascertainment/detection and reasons for dropout are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: AE/SAE definitions in both groups, ascertainment procedures, participants/events, exposure time, discontinuations and loss denominators
Materials to obtain first: AE/SAE definitions in both groups, ascertainment procedures, participants/events, exposure time, discontinuations and loss denominators
Further research: Track exposure and losses among all assigned participants, and record events, participants and discontinuations using the same procedures in both groups.
Remaining uncertainty: AE/SAE/discontinuation definitions, actual group-specific denominators/durations, ascertainment/detection and reasons for dropout are unverified.
Conditions for verification: Retain currently verified signals and specific gaps in systematic ascertainment/denominators.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent a few event records and efficacy data from being converted into complete safety assurance.
Application exceptions: Do not use unreported/unverified information as 0 events or proof of no serious events.
Referenced methods: M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; design-specific adaptations are self-designed; M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; self-developed application; M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; detailed distinctions are self-designed; M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4, M04 §4.6.3; self-developed application; Chamgap's own interpretation boundary. Informed by M19 principles, not execution of an official causality tool

Related sources S01

N38 · Have the meanings of no established UL and no known interactions been appropriately limited?

Current findings: The S03 NIH ODS context records that no UL was established because of limited harm data. This does not prove that high doses cannot cause adverse effects. No known clinically relevant drug interactions is likewise not extended to a guarantee of safety for all concomitant use.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: Summary reading: the specified locations in the retained 3124 stored summary were actually read. Full articles/PDFs, appendices, registrations/protocols, raw data and corrections were not read in this work.
Why unverified: The retained general official context was verified, but it is not direct verification of all harms/concomitant use in the same race/at the same dose. The full official text was not read in this work.
Reason for missing information: The latest official update and direct harm information for the same exposure/population and concomitant use are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: S03 official safety/interaction original text, update date, evidence scope and data on the same exposure/population
Materials to obtain first: S03 official safety/interaction original text, update date, evidence scope and data on the same exposure/population
Further research: Review harm data addressing the same dose/duration/concomitant use and official updates separately.
Remaining uncertainty: The latest official update and direct harm information for the same exposure/population and concomitant use are unverified.
Conditions for verification: Indicate that the lack of an established UL reflects limited harm data and specify the scope of verification of known interactions.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent the lack of an established upper limit from being read as unlimited high-dose safety.
Application exceptions: Do not count a general official document as a direct comparative harm result for this race/all concomitant use.
Referenced methods: M04 §4.5, §4.6.3; limits on the current material conversion follow the user-defined scope and self-designed rules; M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; self-developed application; Chamgap's own interpretation boundary. Informed by M19 principles, not execution of an official causality tool

Related sources S03

N39 · Does the evidence also answer dose/duration, special-population and test-interference questions beyond one race?

Current findings: One-race data do not verify pregnancy, lactation, children, renal/hepatic disease, long-term high-dose use or test interference. They do not answer questions about the optimality of other doses/repeated races or persistence of effects after discontinuation. Study doses are not personal dosing recommendations or instructions to replace symptom assessment/treatment during a race.
Verification status: Unverified
Materials actually read: Summary reading: the specified locations in the retained 3124 stored summary were actually read. Full articles/PDFs, appendices, registrations/protocols, raw data and corrections were not read in this work.
Why unverified: Direct evidence for this extended scope could not be verified in the current retained-material review. Extension conditions were not promoted merely because a narrow time result exists.
Reason for missing information: Direct evidence on long-term use, vulnerable groups, dose comparisons, concomitant use, test interference and persistent effects is unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Direct evidence on long-term/repeated dosing, vulnerable populations/renal or hepatic conditions, pregnancy/lactation/children, concomitant use and test interference
Materials to obtain first: Direct evidence on long-term/repeated dosing, vulnerable populations/renal or hepatic conditions, pregnancy/lactation/children, concomitant use and test interference
Further research: For each needed extension, separately design a study with the appropriate population, duration and focus on harms/interactions or test interference.
Remaining uncertainty: Direct evidence on long-term use, vulnerable groups, dose comparisons, concomitant use, test interference and persistent effects is unverified.
Conditions for verification: Distinguish the direct one-race scope from unverified long-term/special-population, interaction and interference questions.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent brief race data from being generalized to overall safety, optimal dosing or efficacy in all runners.
Application exceptions: Do not require every extension study for the narrow finishing-time table, but explicitly mark unverified information in extension claims.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.1–3.2.4; details of dose, duration and effect modification are self-designed; M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; self-developed application

Related sources S01 S03

N40 · Has this summary review been distinguished from historical full-text and verdict records?

Current findings: The materials actually read in this work are the Korean/structured evidence, bibliography, corrections and historical records in the currently retained 3124 stored summary. Original HTML/PDF access covering 8 pages and other partial access on 2026-09-16 are historical reports; access to external full texts was not attempted in this work, and they were not acquired or read. The original D·30/Caution and historical calculations/self-review are preserved; no new grade, verdict, search or calculation was produced.
Verification status: Met
Materials actually read: Summary reading: the specified locations in the retained 3124 stored summary were actually read. Full articles/PDFs, appendices, registrations/protocols, raw data and corrections were not read in this work.
Why unverified: Original bytes/hashes, dates, current/historical reading and the scope of original-verdict preservation were recorded according to the actions actually taken. This table is not independent clinical/official certification or site publication.
Reason for missing information: Actual reading and complete holdings of current external literature, registrations, appendices and historical separate files were not verified.
Required materials and conditions: Current original/snapshot SHA, scope actually read, historical access/calculations, existing grade/score and reading receipts
Materials to obtain first: Current original/snapshot SHA, scope actually read, historical access/calculations, existing grade/score and reading receipts
Further research: In a subsequent case where new evidence is permitted, preserve original values/previous originals together with dates, access and locations/versions before reviewing linkage conditions.
Remaining uncertainty: Actual reading and complete holdings of current external literature, registrations, appendices and historical separate files were not verified.
Conditions for verification: Separately record the original stored summary's bytes/date, current summary reading, nonreading of the original article and preservation of D/30/Caution.
Why this condition is needed: Needed to prevent full-text access/self-review on 2026-09-16 from being represented as original-source reading or independent certification today.
Application exceptions: Distinguish stored-original-file/hash null values from unexamined historical files, and do not claim a new download/reassessment was performed.
Referenced methods: Material collection/selection principles in M04 §4.5–4.6; distinctions between access and reading and the hyperlink contract are self-designed; M04 §4.5, §4.6.3; limits on the current material conversion follow the user-defined scope and self-designed rules

Related sources S01 S02 S03 S04 S05 S06 S07 S08 S09 S10