claim-support
Claim support
Are substantive statements no stronger than the evidence currently connected to them?
External public review packet
Replace one verdict with several accountable perspectives.
Public assessment of the problem framing, methods, source fidelity, and clinical safety of the founding protocol v0.1
External reviewer participation is currently zero. This is a review packet, not evidence that review has occurred.
Shared assessment dimensions
source-fidelity
Source fidelity
Are primary text, translation, commentary, modern research, and interpretation separated and traceable to passages?
method-fitness
Method fitness
Do sources, strata, measurements, falsification, and analysis fit the question?
clinical-relevance
Clinical relevance
Is added value to real decisions and patient-important outcomes expressed in a testable way?
safety
Safety
Are missed disease, diagnostic delay, treatment substitution, harms, and escalation routes adequately addressed?
novelty
Novelty
Is the contribution distinct from relabelling existing terms or overstated synthesis?
Role-specific review packets
clinical
Independent clinician
Eligibility: Licensed clinician caring for relevant symptom groups without direct interests in the author organisation
- Does the dual-track approach guard against missed disease without delaying symptom and functional care?
- Which statements risk being misconstrued as clinical recommendations?
methods
Methodologist
Eligibility: Independent researcher with relevant expertise in clinical epidemiology, measurement, observational, or qualitative methods
- Are incremental value beyond baseline models and external validation identifiable?
- Are discovery/confirmation, multiplicity, missingness, and confounding handled adequately?
classical-source
Classical-source or medical-history scholar
Eligibility: Independent scholar experienced in classical Chinese medical texts, editions, commentary lineages, or East Asian medical history
- Does the protocol preserve non-equivalence between classical and modern categories?
- Are minimum locators for edition, volume, page, translation, and commentary appropriate?
patient-perspective
Patient or lived-experience perspective
Eligibility: Person with relevant lived experience or independent patient-involvement researcher; no personal medical disclosure required
- Does the language reinforce disbelief, psychogenic reduction, or stigma?
- Do observation burden and patient-important functional goals reflect lived experience?
Required before publication
publicNameaffiliationOrIndependentStatusroleexpertiseStatementconflictStatementpublicReviewConsentreviewTextdimensionRatings
A review cannot become a public assessment object without identity, expertise, conflict disclosure, and public consent.