Every study, searchable

How sensitive is evidence for recent global warming acceleration to the final years included and the model of natural variability? A registered audit uses a frozen NASA global annual temperature series. A fixed-breakpoint model estimates a warming-rate increase of 0.232 °C per decade, with a confidence interval from 0.106 to 0.358. A search over possible breakpoints gives p = 0.0271 with fitted autocorrelation, but p = 0.4078 when the recent endpoint years are excluded. Stronger assumed autocorrelation also weakens the test. These are conditional statistical results about an unadjusted series, with limited simulated power for smaller slope changes.

• Published, Reproduced, Reviewed.Published, Reproduced, Reviewed: In the frozen NASA GISTEMP annual series for 1970-2025, a fixed-2015-knot model estimates a warming-rate increase of 0.232 degrees Celsius per decade with a 95% HAC interval of 0.106 to 0.358, while the registered breakpoint-search p-value is 0.0271 through 2025, 0.4078 through 2022, and 0.1726 through 2025 when the AR(1) lag coefficient is fixed at 0.6.

How sensitive is national absolute carbon decoupling to the emissions boundary and comparison years? A descriptive audit of frozen public carbon inventories and inflation-adjusted gross domestic product covers 118 economies. Between 2015 and 2023, 48 have growing output and falling territorial emissions, 44 meet the consumption definition, and 39 meet both. The joint count is 22 using the pre-pandemic endpoint and 32 using averaged endpoints. These classifications describe the specified snapshots and definitions; they do not establish causal mechanisms or adequate emissions reductions.

• Published, Reproduced, Reviewed.Published, Reproduced, Reviewed: In the frozen Global Carbon Budget 2025 and World Bank complete-case panel of 118 economies, the 2015-2023 endpoint definition (positive real GDP change and negative fossil-carbon change) yields 48 territorial, 44 consumption, and 39 joint absolute-decoupling cases, including 9 territorial-only and 5 consumption-only cases. The joint count becomes 22 for 2015-2019, with 25 classification changes, and 32 for arithmetic-mean 2013-2015 versus 2021-2023 endpoints; 8 economies qualify jointly under all four specified endpoint windows and the smoothed comparison.

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.

How much false-positive error can arise when a nominally exact test treats clustered subsamples as independent? An exact finite benchmark enumerates null distributions for 75 balanced designs. In the selected beta-binomial design, the cell-level Fisher test rejects with probability 0.21567065919813758, compared with 0.0436374106894531 for a test using the known clustered null. With a single observation per donor, the Fisher rejection probability is 0.021484375. These are exact probabilities conditional on the specified toy model. They demonstrate calibration failure from ignoring dependence, without evaluating real biological pipelines or ranking practical alternatives.

• Published, Reproduced, Reviewed.Published, Reproduced, Reviewed: For the specified null of five independent donors per arm and twenty conditionally independent Bernoulli observations per donor with latent Beta(5,5) success probabilities (within-donor correlation 1/11), the cell-level two-sided probability-ordering Fisher test at nominal alpha=0.05 rejects with exact-model probability 0.215670659198, versus 0.043637410689 for the known-clustered-null absolute-difference-tail oracle. The finite 75-design grid has 31 cell-level Fisher probabilities above nominal, while all 75 oracle probabilities and all 15 independent-observation controls are at or below nominal. These are conditional toy-model calibration results, not evaluations of real biological analysis methods.

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.

Can a simple electricity-use schedule transfer across years? We selected seasonal three-hour windows using 2023 data and evaluated them in later Great Britain grid records. Relative to midnight use, assigned average carbon intensity was 5.78% lower in 2024 and 13.15% lower in 2025. The schedule performed worse on 137 and 111 days, respectively. A single year-round window did not improve both years. These retrospective accounting results describe the recorded grid; they do not estimate emissions avoided by changing electricity demand.

• Published, Reproduced, Reviewed.Published, Reproduced, Reviewed: In the frozen Great Britain national Carbon Intensity API actual series, three-hour seasonal UTC windows selected only from 2023 yield mean assigned-intensity reductions versus 00:00-03:00 UTC of 5.778479% across 364 complete days in 2024 and 13.150070% across 365 days in 2025, compared with -9.430428% and 2.353958% for the single 2023-selected year-round window, while the seasonal rule is worse on 137 and 111 days respectively; these are finite-period accounting comparisons and do not estimate causal emissions reductions.