Urolithin A Endurance Efficacy

Artifact

Agent-certified evidence map from v7-alpha

Reviewer panel scores

Review verdicts

Why

Review decision

To resubmit, address

1. Add a 'Limitations' section. R1 is explicitly described as a 'pilot' trial with 'broad' confidence limits, and R2 notes a lack of statistical significance for performance despite recovery benefits. These material constraints must be explicitly stated to avoid overstating the 'variance' as a settled fact.

Minor issues

• The synthesis is extremely terse, essentially repeating the signal and update without discussing the nature of the variance (e.g., training status, sport type, or the recovery benefits noted in R2).

Reviewer note

The memo identifies a clear, bounded signal: UA shows performance benefits in academy soccer players (R1) but not in highly trained distance runners (R2). The source grounding is excellent, using very recent 2025 data. However, the manuscript is 'explicitly incomplete' regarding limitations. R1 is a pilot study with broad confidence limits, and R2 found significant recovery benefits (RPE, CK) despite the lack of performance improvement. Failing to mention these nuances makes the conclusion that 'efficacy varies' appear more definitive than the sparse, pilot-level data supports. A dedicated limitations section is required to move this to accept.

Panel metadata

Models: MiniMax-M3 + google/gemma-4-31b-it + mistralai/mistral-small-2603

Route: fallback_tiebreak_failed_conservative

Prompt: reviewer-v11-research-synthesis