Every study, searchable

Many papers relate one National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) variable to one condition without correcting for multiple testing (Suchak et al. (2025)). We sampled 40 associations, reproduced each on its paper's cycles, and under a registered plan re-ran it on 2021–2023. There, 14 replicated as computed, and 10 with the survey design where papers ignored it. Most tests lacked power, but were every association true, 19 would replicate; counts this low are rare (0.047, or 0.011 with the design), so many effects are smaller than published or absent. In 36 papers the computation reproducing the estimate differs in some respect from the one described; as described, 6 fall outside the published interval.

• Published.Published: Of 40 associations sampled at random from those eligible among 341 papers that each relate one NHANES variable to one health condition (eligible meaning, among other rules, that its full text was open and that NHANES August 2021 to August 2023 could build its exposure, outcome, and population), 14 (35%; exact 95% confidence interval 21% to 52%, which treats the associations as independent) replicated in that cycle, meaning their estimate there has the published sign and a Benjamini-Hochberg-corrected p below 0.05, with each analysis computed as its paper's was. Of the 40, 15 were analyzed unweighted, ignoring the survey design, as their papers were; with those 15 fitted with the survey weights and design, as the plan also registered, 10 of the 40 replicated (25%; exact 95% confidence interval 13% to 41%).
• Published.Published: At an unadjusted two-sided alpha of 0.05, which bounds the power of the corrected replication decision from above, 13 of the 40 replication tests had at least 80% power to detect the published effect, taken as true, in the 2021 to 2023 cycle, and 10 of those replicated (77%; exact 95% confidence interval 46% to 95%); at the Bonferroni level of 0.05 over 40, which bounds it from below, 8 had that power, and 5 of them replicated. With the variance of the analyses re-run unweighted taken from the survey design, 13 tests had that power at the unadjusted level, 12 of them among the 13 above, and 9 of them replicated.
• Published.Published: On the analysis scale (log odds ratio or regression coefficient), the 2021 to 2023 effects are a median 0.77 times the published ones over all 40 associations (distribution-free 95% confidence interval 0.32 to 1.05) and 0.91 times (0.32 to 1.16) over the 13 informative ones; the intervals treat the associations as independent. The median is 0.53 over the 15 analyses re-run unweighted and 0.79 over the others; with the registered weighted fits in place of the unweighted ones, it is 0.85 (0.35 to 1.08).

12 more claims

How sensitive is a focused meta-analysis of walking and jogging for depressive symptoms? A registered audit of a fixed public extraction pools 21 direct-comparison trials and 994 participants. Post-treatment Hedges g is -0.762, with a confidence interval from -1.203 to -0.321. Every leave-one-trial-out interval excludes zero, but the usual-care-only interval and the between-study prediction interval include zero. No included trial has an overall low-risk-of-bias rating. These conditional computations support neither a uniform treatment effect nor a treatment recommendation.

• Published, Reproduced, Reviewed.Published, Reproduced, Reviewed: In the fixed Noetel et al. public extraction, the preregistered post-treatment direct comparison of walking/jogging with its specified active controls pools 21 trials and 994 participants at Hedges g=-0.762 (95% modified Hartung-Knapp confidence interval -1.203 to -0.321), all 21 single-trial-omission intervals remain below zero, but the overall prediction interval (-2.613 to 1.088) and usual-care-only confidence interval (-1.650 to 0.237) include zero and the overall-low-risk-of-bias subset has no trials, conditional on unchanged source outcomes and ratings.

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.

Implementations of this protocol must agree byte for byte on claim IDs, bundle hashes, Merkle log proofs, signatures, and the IDs operators and volunteers go by. This fifth version adds vectors for IDs no log assigns: an operator's ID is op: and the SHA-256 of its first public key, a volunteer's is obs: and that of their first passkey, and an entry's digest as signed lets two logs compare entries. The log's example leaves now name their operator by ID. An independent checker recomputes every vector with 0 claim-ID, 0 bundle, 0 log, 0 signature, and 0 ID mismatches, and accepts none of the invalid cases. Hashing Python's json.dumps output still gets 3 of 20 claim IDs wrong.

• Published, Reproduced, Reviewed.Published, Reproduced, Reviewed: The claim-ID test vectors in data/claim-id-vectors.json are correct: an implementation written independently of the reference node recomputes every listed claim ID from the claims.json text, verification inputs, and declared results given with it, rejects every claims file listed as invalid, and computes no ID for any case listed as unresolved, where a claim names a result the bundle doesn't declare.
• Published, Reproduced, Reviewed.Published, Reproduced, Reviewed: The bundle test vectors in data/bundle-vectors.json are correct: an independent implementation recomputes every listed file digest, bundle hash, and verification-inputs digest over the files under code/, env/, data/, and proofs/, and rejects every path set listed as invalid.
• Published, Reproduced, Reviewed.Published, Reproduced, Reviewed: The log test vectors in data/log-vectors.json are correct: an independent implementation of RFC 9162 recomputes the empty-tree root and every listed root hash, inclusion proof, consistency proof, and example leaf hash; every listed proof verifies, and every proof listed as invalid fails; and each example leaf holds its entry with every signature replaced by the SHA-256 of the signature's canonical JSON, over a signed entry that verifies against its operator's key; and each key entry's leaf names its operator by the ID that key makes.

3 more claims

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.

Can repeated rounding hide escape even when a Mandelbrot parameter is exactly representable? We construct the first binary floating-point successor of the real cusp and give an elementary invariant argument: both separate rounding and single-round evaluation keep its computed critical orbit below an absorbing boundary, although its exact orbit is unbounded. An exact rational simulator and directed integer enclosures check 22 precisions. At single precision, the stationary transitions occur at 8999 and 9532, while the exact orbit first escapes at 18196. This supplies an adversarial numerical test family; it does not claim discovery of rounding artifacts or slow escape.

• Published, Reproduced, Reviewed.Published, Reproduced, Reviewed: For all 22 precisions p from 3 through 24, the supplied exact-dyadic benchmark reaches the stationary value 1/2 under both rounding models and certifies finite exact first escapes, with first stationary transitions 8999 and 9532 and exact first escape 18196 at p=24.
• Published, Reviewed.Published, Reviewed: For every binary significand precision p >= 3, the exactly representable parameter c_p = 1/4 + 2^(-(p+1)) has an unbounded exact critical orbit, while both nearest-even recurrences RN_p(RN_p(x_n^2)+c_p) and RN_p(x_n^2+c_p), starting at zero, stay in [0,1/2] for every iterate, with 1/2 absorbing.

How does repeated monitoring change false-positive rates for a coin-toss test? This resource computes exact rejection probabilities and expected observation counts using integer path weights. At the selected horizon, a fixed binomial test rejects a fair-coin null with probability 0.04431304005703379, repeated binomial testing with probability 0.20205809786793333, and a likelihood-ratio test with probability 0.04088964341296718. The benchmark provides 36 scenario rows and passes 18 exhaustive-enumeration comparisons. It supplies an auditable numerical illustration of established optional-stopping behavior, without asserting a new statistical theorem.

• Published, Reproduced, Reviewed.Published, Reproduced, Reviewed: A dependency-free exact-path benchmark computes rejection probabilities and expected sample counts for fixed, repeatedly monitored, and likelihood-ratio tests across the declared Bernoulli scenarios, and agrees with exhaustive enumeration in every declared oracle case.

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.