phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | one analysis population with four names in circulation, each attached to a different regulator, and a modified variant defined case by case— “The International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH) E9 guideline on “Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials” uses the term “full analysis set” to describe the analysis set which is as complete as possible and as close as possible to the ITT ideal of including all randomized subjects.” | |
| claim-type | critique— “It is a subset of the ITT population and allows the exclusion of some randomized subjects in a justified way (such as patients who were deemed ineligible after randomization or certain patients who never started treatment). However, the definition given to the modified ITT (mITT) in randomized controlled trial has been found to be irregular… | |
| method — evidence | — “Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP) note for guidance “Biostatistical Methodology in Clinical Trials for Marketing Authorisations for Medicinal Products” states that decisions concerning the analysis population should be guided by the principles underlying the “intention-to-treat” and the “per-protocol” strategies. When the… | |
| object of study — evidence | — “According to Fisher et al . (1990), the ITT analysis includes all randomized patients in the groups to which they were randomly assigned, regardless of their adherence with the entry criteria, regardless of the treatment they… | |
| research question — evidence | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | |
| contribution — evidence | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | |
| transfer | from biostatistics: intention-to-treat is a statistical concept imported into the conduct and reporting of randomized controlled trials to handle noncompliance and missing outcomes Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | transfers[0] |
| transfer | from randomization theory (trial design): the analysis set is defined by the randomized assignment rather than by the treatment actually received, which is what preserves the randomization Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | transfers[1] |
| mechanism | THE DEFINITION IS A TRIPLE REFUSAL TO CONDITION ON ANYTHING THAT HAPPENED AFTER RANDOMISATION - `regardless of their adherence with the entry criteria, regardless of the treatment they actually received, and regardless of subsequent withdrawal from treatment or deviation from the protocol` Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | and the reason is that the alternative destroys what randomisation bought: `If noncompliant subjects and dropouts are excluded from the final analysis, it might create important prognostic differences among treatment groups` - and subjects `may be noncompliant or may drop out due to their response of treatment` Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | mechanisms[1] |
| mechanism | THE COST IS PAID IN THE SAME COIN. `In ITT analysis, estimate of treatment effect is generally CONSERVATIVE because of DILUTION due to noncompliance` - the property that makes it unbiased is the property that makes it small Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | mechanisms[2] |
| mechanism | so the criticism is symmetrical: ITT `has been criticized for being too cautious and thus being more susceptible to type II error` Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | mechanisms[3] |
| mechanism | AND THE TWO POPULATIONS FAIL IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS, WHICH IS WHY THE CHOICE IS NOT NEUTRAL. `ITT tends to make the two treatments look similar, whereas the PP removes patients who do not complete treatment and is more able to reflect treatment differences` Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | mechanisms[4] |
| mechanism | THE MODIFIED VARIANT HAS NO STABLE DEFINITION AT ALL - `the definition given to the modified ITT (mITT) in randomized controlled trial has been found to be irregular and arbitrary because there is a lack of consistent guidelines for its application. The mITT analysis allows a subjective approach in entry criteria` Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | mechanisms[5] |
| mechanism | and it is not one population but many: `multiple mITT populations can be defined for a single study such as clinical mITT and microbiological mITT` Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | mechanisms[6] |
| mechanism | THE SAME OBJECT CARRIES A THIRD NAME FROM A THIRD AUTHORITY - ICH E9 `uses the term FULL ANALYSIS SET to describe the analysis set which is as complete as possible and as close as possible to the ITT ideal` Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | mechanisms[7] |
| critiques | the modified ITT population as used in randomised trials, whose definition the paper reports as irregular, arbitrary and lacking consistent guidelines Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | claim_relations[0] |
| supports | the CONSORT requirement that participants be analysed by the intention-to-treat principle and that deviations be fully reported Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | claim_relations[1] |
| concedes | that ITT dilutes the treatment effect and is more susceptible to type II error - the arguments against it 'appear valid' Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | claim_relations[2] |
| sense | `intention-to-treat` (Fisher et al. 1990) - all randomised patients in their assigned groups, `regardless of their adherence with the entry criteria, regardless of the treatment they actually received, and regardless of subsequent withdrawal` Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | senses[0] |
| sense | `intention-to-treat` (the slogan) - `once randomized, always analyzed` Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | senses[1] |
| sense | `full analysis set` (ICH E9) - the analysis set `as complete as possible and as close as possible to the ITT ideal` - the same object under a third name Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | senses[2] |
| sense | `modified ITT` - a subset with exclusions `in a justified way`, whose definition the literature finds `irregular and arbitrary` Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | senses[3] |
| sense | `ITT` as a whole-trial strategy - `better regarded as a complete trial strategy for design, conduct and analysis rather than as an approach to analysis alone` Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | senses[4] |
| control | randomisation itself - allocating subjects to arms after eligibility is assessed but before the intervention is given — held Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. — rules out systematic difference between the groups at baseline; ITT exists to protect this and per-protocol analysis is what spends it Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | controls[0] |
| control | requiring full reporting of every deviation from random allocation and every missing response, as CONSORT does — held Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. — rules out an ITT label attached to an analysis whose exclusions the reader cannot see; the guideline makes the departures visible rather than forbidding them Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | controls[1] |
| control | requiring the ITT and per-protocol analyses to agree before a non-inferiority claim is made — partial Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. — rules out a conclusion that depends on which population was chosen - the two are known to fail in opposite directions, so agreement between them is informative Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | controls[2] |
| weight | the modified ITT population as used in randomised trials, whose definition the paper reports as irregular, arbitrary and lacking consistent guidelines — 0.9 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | claim_relations[0] |
| weight | the CONSORT requirement that participants be analysed by the intention-to-treat principle and that deviations be fully reported — 0.9 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | claim_relations[1] |
| weight | that ITT dilutes the treatment effect and is more susceptible to type II error - the arguments against it 'appear valid' — 0.9 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | claim_relations[2] |
| note | ITT analysis —distinct-from→ per-protocol — 'ITT tends to…' Not two views of one number - two numbers, and the analyst picks which before seeing either. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[0] |
| relation | ITT analysis —distinct-from→ per-protocol — ITT keeps the noncompliers and dilutes the difference; per-protocol removes them and shows it - so the choice of population moves the answer, in a direction that is known in advance Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[0] |
| weight | ITT analysis —distinct-from→ per-protocol — 0.95 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[0] |
| audit | superiority trial —distinct-from→ noninferiority — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span writes 'non-inferiority', and the ITT role differs between the two designs; distinct-from is loose. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[1] |
| note | superiority trial —distinct-from→ noninferiority — 'WHEREAS the importance…' The same method, the same population, and its authority is a property of the question being asked - which is why 'use ITT' is not an instruction. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[1] |
| relation | superiority trial —distinct-from→ noninferiority — ITT's standing depends on what the trial is trying to show: settled as primary in a superiority design, unsettled in a non-inferiority one Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[1] |
| weight | superiority trial —distinct-from→ noninferiority — 0.95 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[1] |
| outcome | control — held Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | controls[0] |
| outcome | control — held Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | controls[1] |
| outcome | control — partial Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | controls[2] |
| limitation | The guidelines do not agree about where the principle applies. `Whereas the importance of the ITT population analysis in superiority designs has been well accepted, however there is no consensus about its role in non-inferiority trials` Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[0] |
| limitation | and the proposed resolution is to require both and hope they agree - `noninferiority should be concluded only if both ITT and PP analyses permit that` - which is a procedure rather than a principle, and the paper notes the conservative effect of PP on such trials `has not been thoroughly explored` Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[1] |
| limitation | the remedy offered for the missing data ITT cannot ignore is itself contested - last observation carried forward, `whereby the LAST AVAILABLE MEASUREMENT for each individual at the time point prior to withdrawal IS RETAINED in the analysis`, presented here without its known bias Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[2] |
| limitation | This is a narrative review for beginners, not a systematic one. No search strategy, no inclusion criteria and no synthesis are reported; the claims about what the literature finds - including the central one about mITT - are carried by citation Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[3] |
| limitation | and the practical advice at the end withdraws the problem rather than solving it: `Anyone who follows these principles intelligently and has a vision to minimize bias should not worry further about 'INTENTION TO TREAT'` Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[4] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[0] |
| finding | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[1] |
| finding | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[2] |
| finding | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[3] |
| finding | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[4] |
| finding | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[5] |
| finding | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[6] |
| quantity | 2 complications — noncompliance and missing outcomes - the two failures of a randomised trial that the principle is a response to Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[0] |
| variable | analysis population Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[0] |
| definition | ITT analysis Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[0] |
| definition | full analysis set Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[1] |
| definition | modified ITT Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[2] |
| definition | last observation carried forward Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[3] |
| concept | intention-to-treat — not defined in this paper's own words; the principle that every randomised subject is analysed in the group they were assigned to, whatever happened afterwards Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[0] |
| concept | ITT analysis — not defined in this paper's own words; Fisher et al. 1990: all randomised patients in their assigned groups, 'regardless of' entry criteria, treatment actually received, and subsequent withdrawal Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[1] |
| concept | per-protocol — not defined in this paper's own words; the subset who completed the study without major protocol violations - the population ITT is defined against Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[2] |
| concept | modified ITT — not defined in this paper's own words; a subset of the ITT population with some exclusions 'in a justified way' - and the paper's finding is that 'justified' has no agreed content Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[3] |
| concept | full analysis set — not defined in this paper's own words; ICH E9's name for the analysis set 'as close as possible to the ITT ideal' - a third term for the same object, issued by a third authority Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[4] |
| concept | noncompliance — not defined in this paper's own words; subjects not taking the treatment they were assigned - one of the two failures ITT exists to absorb, and the source of its conservatism Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[5] |
| concept | prognostic balance — not defined in this paper's own words; the comparability between arms that randomisation creates and that excluding dropouts destroys Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[6] |
| concept | type II error — not defined in this paper's own words; the failure ITT is criticised for making more likely, by being 'too cautious' Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[7] |
| concept | sample size — not defined in this paper's own words; preserved by ITT, because excluding noncompliers and dropouts reduces it and with it the statistical power Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[8] |
| concept | last observation carried forward — not defined in this paper's own words; the substitute for missing data - the last measurement before withdrawal is retained in the analysis Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[9] |
| concept | noninferiority — not defined in this paper's own words; the trial design where ITT's authority is unsettled - and where the paper reports that ITT alone is not preferred Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[10] |
| concept | superiority trial — not defined in this paper's own words; the design where ITT is settled as primary and per-protocol as supportive Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[11] |
| concept | heterogeneity — not defined in this paper's own words; what mixing noncompliers, dropouts and completers introduces into the final analysis - the cost side of the same decision Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[12] |
| a bias and a power loss that are the same property seen twice | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[0] |
When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.
Tag layer © the Meta-Tagging Project, CC BY 4.0. The paper text is © its authors/publisher
and is linked, not reproduced. Excerpts shown are short quotations for identification and verification.
· back to index
· concepts · authors
· עברית
© 2026 Shir Sivroni · ORCID 0009-0000-2597-2824