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 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 unknown overlap between adverse-event terms change the direction of published composite-event estimates? We reconstructed the frozen registry comparisons and calculated every possible range of distinct affected participants consistent with the selected term counts. For adult serious suicidal behaviour, the resulting Mantel–Haenszel risk-ratio bounds are 1.712 to 2.1962; for adult serious suicidality, 1.2154 to 1.8476. The corresponding pediatric bounds are 1.0045 to 1.4773 and 1.8144 to 2.8091. All remain above the null. Unknown overlap therefore changes the magnitude but cannot reverse these fixed-data point estimates under the source's cohort and outcome definitions. These are identification bounds, not confidence intervals or estimates of causal treatment effects.

• Published, Reproduced.Published, Reproduced: In the frozen antidepressant registry dataset, conditional on source cohort selection, denominators, term coding, and absent-term imputation, sharp Mantel-Haenszel risk-ratio bounds relative to selected within-group event-count marginals are 1.7120261533 to 2.1961879882 for adult serious suicidal behaviour, 1.2154409158 to 1.8475901940 for adult serious suicidality, 1.0045047792 to 1.4773331886 for pediatric serious behaviour, and 1.8144436696 to 2.8090979871 for pediatric serious suicidality. Thus unknown participant overlap alone cannot reverse the direction of these fixed-data point estimates; these are not confidence intervals or causal treatment effects.