S-23

Clinical review: not reviewed by a qualified clinician.

2026-09-08 · Independently inspected the listed passages; replaced or qualified inherited assertions. No qualified clinical review has occurred.

2026-09-09 · Independently reopened the FDA page directly; the live URL returned an automated bot-detection response on this attempt, so the Internet Archive Wayback Machine snapshot dated 2026-05-18 was read as a lawful alternative. Confirmed the full page text verbatim, that it names no individual SARM, and its footer statement Content current as of 04/26/2023. This claim's own regulatory.asOf field still carried the evidence-cutoff placeholder (2026-09-08) rather than the source's actual date even though the source record itself was already corrected to 2023-04-26 by an earlier batch; corrected regulatory.asOf to 2023-04-26 here. The claim text required no change. Independent editorial review pending.

2026-09-09 · Independent editorial review: the 2026-09-09 change of regulatory.asOf from 2026-09-08 to 2023-04-26 is rejected and reverted. Every other regulatory claim in the published model (17 of 18, by direct count) and two prior coordinator corrections in this same pass (aas-coordinator-edits.json, ancillary-coordinator-edits.json) establish that regulatory.asOf records the date through which this pass confirms the described status is still current, capped at the evidence cutoff -- not the cited document's own date, which is already fully recorded on the source record's own publicationDate and availableBy fields. regulatory.asOf is restored to 2026-09-08. No other change to this claim's text, sources or limitations was required; independently reconfirmed the FDA page's class-only, no-molecule-named framing, its exact adverse-event list including liver injury and acute liver failure, and its footer date. No qualified clinical review has occurred.

Clinical review: not reviewed by a qualified clinician.

2026-09-08 · Independently inspected the listed passages; replaced or qualified inherited assertions. No qualified clinical review has occurred.

2026-09-09 · Reopened the abstract and added the exact microdose amounts, metabolite count and average detection windows reported for the doping-control assay.

Clinical review: not reviewed by a qualified clinician.

2026-09-08 · Independently inspected the listed passages; replaced or qualified inherited assertions. No qualified clinical review has occurred.

2026-09-09 · Reopened the abstract via Europe PMC REST and verified every number now stated in the claim against the source verbatim: in the estradiol-benzoate plus S-23 (0.1 mg/d) group, four of six animals showed no sperm in the testis and zero of six pregnancies in mating trials; infertility was fully reversible, with a 100 percent pregnancy rate observed after 100 days of recovery; combined dosing is described as up to 10 weeks. Replaced the prior unquantified description with these exact figures. This record carries a PMCID (PMC2630904); full-text access was attempted through four routes (the NCBI PMC article page, the Europe PMC fullTextXML and BioC endpoints, and the Europe PMC PDF-render API) and each failed (anti-bot interstitial, 404, 404 and no PDF file found respectively); the Europe PMC HTML article page itself requires client-side JavaScript a scripted fetch cannot execute. Inspection stays abstract-level per the brief's instruction not to upgrade on a guess. No indexed correction or retraction found. Independent editorial review pending.

2026-09-09 · Independent editorial review reopened PMC2630904 directly (HTTP 200 on a plain browser-header GET request, no CAPTCHA or bot-check encountered, contrary to the batch's reported access failure on this exact route) and read Results Tables 3 and 6. The abstract's 'zero pregnancies (none of six)' phrase does not match Table 3's own reported fraction of 0 of 12 pregnancies for the same 0.1 mg/d EB plus S-23 group; corrected the claim's mating-trial figure to 0 of 12 and upgraded verification to passage-checked. The 4 of 6 azoospermia figure and the 100 percent pregnancy rate at 100 days of recovery were both reconfirmed unchanged against the full text. Deliberately did not add the full text's intermediate 83 percent (10 of 12) pregnancy rate at 70 days after treatment ended, to avoid turning a single animal-only recovery figure into a multi-point recovery timeline. No qualified clinical review.