The phrase "accepted as relevant" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in contexts where you want to indicate that something has been acknowledged or recognized as pertinent or applicable to a particular situation or discussion.
Example: "The findings of the study were accepted as relevant by the committee during their review process."
Alternatives: "recognized as pertinent" or "acknowledged as applicable."
To provide some context around what information that is generally accepted as relevant OSINT, think of the following.
Similarly, accounts of dance that focus heavily on the lived experience of dance as art for both the performer and the audience that answers to the truth of that experience for dance practitioners may be of interest to pragmatists and phenomenological philosophers but may not be accepted as relevant by some analytic philosophers.
Not everybody is convinced of the value of this experience for the professional performance in general practice and the experience is not always accepted as relevant.
However in an earlier different context the author held that living donors of gametes should have the right to direct their gametes to categories of recipients accepted as relevant by the moral or religious communities in their society [ 43].
The aspirin review specifically studied gastrointestinal bleeding, so the free text terms "h(a)emorrhage", "bleed ing)", "mel(a)ena", "h(a)ematemesis", and "gastrotoxic" were accepted as relevant, in addition to general terms such as "side/adverse effect".
More specifically, for a rationale to be perceived as reasonable, it should be based on evidence, values, reasons or principles that are accepted as relevant by the stakeholders within the given sector, institution or locality.
Key elements of a fair process involves transparency about the grounds for decisions; appeals to rationales that all can accept as relevant to meeting health needs fairly; and procedures for revising decisions in light of challenges to them.
Criteria for establishing a legitimate and fair process for priority-setting have been proposed by Daniels and include: "...transparency about the grounds for decisions; appeals to rationales that all can accept as relevant to meeting health needs fairly; and procedures for revising decisions in light of challenges to them".
A period of up to 1 Ma became widely accepted as the relevant time horizon.
Changes between 13 16 mm are widely accepted as clinically relevant.
Twelve reports were accepted as clinically relevant with substantive content to be included in the assessment.
