This record documents the study’s coding framework and its amendment history. Earlier versions remain available unchanged so that the development of the protocol can be inspected over time. Version 3 update (September 2026). This version records the final protocol used for the study. Following additional methodological validation and a corpus-wide consistency audit, the protocol was refined and frozen as v1.3. The final framework classifies binding-substantive values as full, partial or undisclosed provenance according to whether the documentary record identifies an antecedent and makes the relationship to the adopted numerical value reconstructable. Version 3 also fixes the final documentary search boundary, first-order provenance definition, treatment of operative annexes, inherited requirements and external standards, and the final independent reliability procedure. Earlier origin-category and proposition-testing fields are retained as part of the methodological history but are not the basis of the final reported provenance results. This is a deposited methodological protocol and amendment record, not a preregistration.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mahshid Cheraghi (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: