Every study, searchable

Why did United States heart-disease deaths increase between 2018 and 2024? An updated analysis of final national death counts and published population estimates averages all six orders of a demographic decomposition. Known-age deaths increase by 28135. Population size contributes 25981.4 deaths, age composition 26512.2, and age-specific rates -24358.5. Demographic contributions outweigh the negative rate contribution. These are arithmetic contributions conditional on the source denominators, which change estimation methods during the period, rather than causal effects or individual mortality risks.

• Published, Reproduced, Reviewed.Published, Reproduced, Reviewed: In the bundled CDC WONDER D158 final snapshot for United States residents with known age, 2018-2024 heart-disease deaths increase by 28,135. Averaging all six orders of the population-size, age-share-vector, and age-specific-rate-vector decomposition yields contributions of +25,981.4, +26,512.2, and -24,358.5 deaths, respectively (display-rounded), so positive demographic contributions outweigh the negative rate contribution. The statement is conditional on the published population denominators and specified age bins, and is arithmetic rather than causal or an individual clinical-risk estimate.

Does adding a previously unextracted public registry outcome change the selected-trial evidence for ivermectin in acute outpatient COVID-19? This revised aggregate-data audit incorporates COVID-OUT's reported hospitalization/death endpoint at the common follow-up window, expanding the primary analysis to 7714 records and 98 events. The exploratory pooled risk ratio is 1.107 (95% confidence interval 0.577 to 2.123). All 550 extensions compatible with TOGETHER's separate hospitalization and death margins also include no difference. The newly retrieved appendix does not identify their overlap. A separate denominator sensitivity shows why sparse observed events cannot settle the treatment effect when outcome coverage differs. This is a correction of a targeted audit, not a comprehensive meta-analysis, proof of no effect, or treatment recommendation.

• Published, Reproduced, Reviewed.Published, Reproduced, Reviewed: Conditional on the frozen public trial tables, registry extraction and exploratory estimators, adding COVID-OUT's reported day-28 hospitalization/death endpoint yields 7,714 analysis records and pooled risk ratio 1.107 (95% modified Hartung-Knapp interval 0.577 to 2.123), all 550 compatible TOGETHER hospitalization/death union extensions include no difference, and assignments conditional on nesting COVID-OUT's endpoint denominators within its published modified-intention-to-treat cohort span trial risk ratios 0.083 to 7.766, establishing neither benefit nor equivalence.

Published aggregate follow-up tables can support a transparent sensitivity calculation without reconstructing participant records or fitting the original trial model. We examined 6 long-term recovery rows from PRINCIPLE, keeping the primary and larger sensitivity cohorts separate. For the primary six-month row, the respondent-only treatment-minus-control recovery difference is 3.071 percentage points. Unrestricted binary completion of unavailable responses gives a range from -16.54 to 21.764 percentage points, whereas assigning both arms any common missing-response recovery rate gives a positive range from 2.329 to 2.896 percentage points. These are conditional bounds, not confidence intervals. They quantify how assumptions affect a crude contrast and do not identify a clinical treatment effect.

• Published.Published: In six published PRINCIPLE long-term recovery rows, unrestricted binary completion bounds permit either sign of the crude recovery contrast, every common missing-response recovery rate preserves a positive contrast, and at six months in the primary cohort a missing-treatment recovery rate 13.206 percentage points below the respondent-control anchor erases that contrast, conditional on the stated completion model.