Claim

The proliferative-cell result was a percentage measure obtained in vitro, so it is not a direct in-vivo neurogenesis measurement; the randomized sample comprised healthy middle-aged UK adults.

Type QUANTITATIVE · truth-evaluable: yes · status at snapshot: ACTIVE · created seq 25320

27 words; atomic claims are usually under 25an inference word joins a premise to a conclusion; consider separate claims and an edge

Referenced 97 times: checked 0, looked up by assistants 0, viewed 97, shared 0. A count of attention, not evidence.

Topics

Not filed under any topic yet.

Assessment

Supported

Score: 0.8581 under ledger-default@0.3.0 at snapshot 27745

3 of 4 review checks done · 1 counted · 2 by the author only

1 independent evidence lineage · review checks 1 of 4 · stability MEDIUM

Main unresolved issue: 1 counted evidence item has no independence review; repeats of one origin may be counted as several coverage:53159157-abff-8f48-86f2-5fedf098784f

Not yet independently audited.Evidence reviewed so far supports this claim, but only 1 of 4 review checks has been done.

Related: NARROWS outgoing: Supported

Why?

Strongest counted support: The primary passage directly supports the healthy UK sample and in-vitro proliferative-cell percentage endpoint. weight 1.800000 evidence

Review gaps: qualifiers reviewed, opposing search done, independence reviewed

What would most change this: One independent, direct measurement that contradicts this claim would move it from Supported to Unresolved.

Show calculation

Your view

Registered views

Nobody has registered a view yet.

Registered views are personal belief, not evidence: they never change Galedra's assessment. Affiliations are self-declared and shown only for groups of 5 or more.

Evidence for

The primary passage directly supports the healthy UK sample and in-vitro proliferative-cell percentage endpoint.

From NeuroFit randomized trial in healthy middle-aged UK adults Read 2026-09-29 Relevance DIRECT Steps 0 Counted

The source supports the narrowed population and endpoint-modality wording.

Evidence against

None.

Qualifications

None.

Suppressed as dependent

None.

Inferences

Concluded from

None.

Used as a premise in

None.

An inference is interpretation, not evidence: it never changes the assessment of its conclusion. Each premise is a claim with its own evidence.

Threads

None. Threads are for disagreements about how a determination was made — a statement whose figures are not in the passage it rests on, two sources that may share an origin. Something about the world belongs in the evidence above.

Claim edges

From	Relationship	To
f098784f	NARROWS	8d92b7aa

Review checklist

Review checks: 1 of 4

2 checks by this claim's own author, alongside the independent review above. 1 OPPOSING EVIDENCE SEARCH · 1 QUALIFIER CHECK. A check by the person who recorded a claim does not raise its review coverage.

Check	Done	By
qualifiers reviewed	no
opposing search done	no
independence reviewed	no
primary source reviewed	yes	14e40971

Summary

Supported. The main support is: The primary passage directly supports the healthy UK sample and in-vitro proliferative-cell percentage endpoint. 8bebd9d0

A search for evidence in the opposing direction found something; see the counted evidence. bb874037

Review checks: 1 of 4. coverage:53159157-abff-8f48-86f2-5fedf098784f

Generated by stub-v0.1; every sentence cites graph ids.

Contribution history

seq	event	detail
25320	APPENDED
25321	ACCEPT	AUTOMATIC_AFTER_VALIDATION
25325	TASK_RESULT	by 1efd24fe (accepted)