# Consensus checked against original sources: NAD Boosters and Human Function

Cutoff: 13 October 2026. Consensus supports discovery and checks of specific source aspects; it is not a primary study, a full-paper audit or a causal probability meter.

## Within-group effect versus NMN/placebo efficacy
Observed Consensus appropriately notes the weak between-group interpretation. Actual original M/R identify physical outcomes as secondary, a nominal sit-to-stand interaction, Bonferroni posthoc within-arm improvement in every group, and largest pre/post Cohen d for NMN-afternoon. A largest within-arm effect is not a demonstrated NMN-placebo treatment difference; sleep primary interaction is also null. [Original PMID35215405](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35215405/). Access: full_text_partial.

## Eligibility and analysis completeness
Original Methods actually require ≥65 independently mobile adults without long-term care; three dropouts are carried forward from baseline in ITT. This supports registered age/duration eligibility but does not establish no attrition bias or all older disease populations. Provider subgroup/general-function wording remains bounded to this experiment. [Original PMID35215405](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35215405/). Access: full_text_partial.

## Only twenty completed versus allocation-related data exclusion
Provider describes twenty completed with a post-week-six deviation. Original M/R identify42randomized and a supplier cross-switch in eleven participants per arm, excluding their week-twelve data and leaving10per arm. This is not ordinary20of42follow-up completion; compromised assigned exposure and baseline balance must be explicit. [Original PMID35927255](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35927255/). Access: full_text_partial.

## Nominal physical effects and ≥eight-week gate
Original Methods make NAD/body composition primary and function secondary, and explicitly apply no multiple-comparison correction. Gait and left-grip mixed-model signals are exploratory; six-week left-grip/chair-stand findings cannot alone satisfy ≥eight-week registration. Twelve-week gait remains a tentative signal with the small valid sample, rather than certain replicated strength benefit. [Original PMID35927255](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35927255/). Access: full_text_partial.

## Null stepping primary and actual controlled secondary gait
Provider accurately separates the null primary and gait secondary. DOI-matched original PDF M/R actually confirm ages65–75 and baseline-adjusted ANCOVA; stepping, grip and total SPPB scores are null, while four-metre time is positive. The registered review allows gait, so secondary status constrains certainty rather than silently adding a primary-only gate. [Original PMID38789831](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38789831/). Access: full_text_partial.

## Missing observations and multiplicity
Original Results designate all60as efficacy set but report unavailable measurements, including two placebo participants at week12. Original statistics analyze baseline-adjusted timepoints and only twelve-week-positive variables at four weeks; no familywise correction is stated in the examined passage. Provider robust-benefit caution is appropriate, but no unexamined complete-data or correction analysis is claimed. [Original PMID38789831](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38789831/). Access: full_text_partial.

## Direct older-diabetic function null
Provider correctly describes the24-week250mgolder-diabetes impaired-function trial. Examined original abstract retains primary grip/walk nulls, fourteen participants and borderline exploratory observations. Small power limits precise exclusion, but frailty/retinal trends cannot be promoted into a positive primary or erase healthy-context signals. No body access is claimed. [Original PMID36443648](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36443648/). Access: abstract_metadata.

## Clamp physiology versus physical function
Provider correctly distinguishes prediabetic insulin-sensitivity physiology from older physical efficacy. Original abstract reports clamp/signaling/remodeling benefits, rather than a strength/gait/capacity result. Any additional claim of measured grip/fatigability nulls needs the corresponding original passages; absence from our examined abstract is not a measured null. [Original PMID33888596](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33888596/). Access: abstract_metadata.

## Ventilatory threshold versus VO2max
Original younger/middle-aged six-week runner abstract supports selected ventilatory-threshold improvements while VO2max, O2-pulse and peak power do not differ. Provider aerobic-capacity wording must preserve exact readouts, training and out-of-scope duration/age rather than treating every fitness endpoint as positive. [Original PMID34238308](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34238308/). Access: abstract_metadata.

## Provider broad NR-null summary versus genuine PAD benefit
Provider warns correctly against merging NMN and NR, but its adjacent summary broadly emphasizes NR functional nulls. The actual NICE original abstract reports a six-month NR-PAD walking benefit, with a one-sided90%interval and distinct adherent-subgroup analysis. This specific positive is retained, with its indexed erratum attached and no transfer to NMN or human longevity. [Original PMID38871717](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38871717/). Access: abstract_metadata.

## Metformin add-on versus lifestyle contrast
Provider correctly cites metformin older-function nulls. Actual DEMFOS abstract shows intensive-lifestyle-plus-metformin superiority over less intensive lifestyle, but no advantage over matched intensive-lifestyle-plus-placebo. The useful lifestyle effect cannot be assigned to metformin. [Original PMID42532077](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42532077/). Access: abstract_metadata.

## Clinical null and tolerability boundary
Provider retains the frail-older metformin null and poor tolerability. Original abstract gives a near-zero gait contrast, more observed admissions and an unrelated adjudicated death. These disease-specific findings are relevant harms/function boundaries, not proof of harm or inefficacy for every diabetic use or NMN. [Original PMID40147475](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40147475/). Access: abstract_metadata.

## Methods
Consensus was used to identify literature and cross-check specific claims about design, endpoints, scope and research gaps. Those aspects were checked against original primary abstracts/status records and selected original Methods/Results passages. Consensus output was not treated as original full text. Provider search omissions are not evidence that a study does not exist. Source access and examination receipts are retained. Scite use or monthly unavailability is recorded per case; provider citation counts do not change causal grades.