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.

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.

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, 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.
• 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.

Does maintaining normal tissue mechanics prevent cancer initiation? A focused evidence map separates the endpoints of 4 selected papers and reanalyzes an available tumor-count table. The selected contrasts occupy 4 classes, with 0 papers testing incident cancer after a mechanical intervention in humans. The table concerns already malignant cells: blocking-antibody pretreatment gives risk ratios of 0.4667 and 0.5 against its controls. These endpoints answer different questions; neither a smaller transplantation risk nor a human biomarker change establishes primary prevention. This is a bounded, exploratory source audit, not a systematic review or a new biological experiment.

• Published, Reproduced, Reviewed.Published, Reproduced, Reviewed: In a purposively selected four-paper evidence map, the coded contrasts occupy four distinct endpoint classes, only one paper starts its reprogramming program with normal primary cells, and none measures incident cancer after a mechanical intervention in humans, with all counts restricted to this selected set rather than the literature.
• Published, Reproduced, Reviewed.Published, Reproduced, Reviewed: Reanalysis of Weaver et al. (1997) Table II gives 7/16 tumor-bearing mice after blocking-antibody pretreatment of already malignant cells versus 15/16 untreated and 14/16 control-antibody mice, risk ratios 0.4667 and 0.5000, with two-sided Fisher p-values 0.005923 and 0.023333 (Holm-adjusted 0.011846 and 0.023333), while conservative simultaneous 95% risk-ratio intervals are 0.1612 to 1.1614 and 0.1625 to 1.3304 under independent-binomial sampling.

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.

We tested whether explicit flare and artifact controls improve recovery of simulated stellar self-lensing pulses in public Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS) light curves. A preregistered sample contains 100 stars, with 40 used for development and 60 for evaluation. At the same empirical background-trigger fraction of 10%, the development-selected controls recovered 269 of 540 pulses (49.8%), versus 239 (44.3%) for the lensing-template baseline. The difference is 5.6 percentage points, with a paired target-bootstrap interval from -10.6 to 26.7 percentage points. This pilot leaves a recovery benefit unresolved. Background triggers are not labeled false alarms, and this study makes no astronomical discovery claim.

• Published.Published: In a preregistered 100-target TESS Sector 1 pilot with 40 development and 60 evaluation stars, the development-selected flare/artifact control recovered 269/540 newly localized injected pulses versus 239/540 for the baseline at 6/60 un-injected target triggers per method, a 5.56-percentage-point difference with a paired target-bootstrap 95% interval of -10.56 to 26.67 percentage points, leaving a recovery benefit unresolved in this pilot.

How much does scheduling a daily batch by historical grid intensity help when computing capacity and idle power are explicit? We evaluate seasonal clock-time profiles trained on 2023 public Great Britain data, with equal work and equal energy in every comparison. At 50% utilization, assigned carbon falls by 11.63% in 2024 and 12.81% in 2025 relative to uniform processing. Setting idle power to 50% of maximum power reduces these advantages to 3.88% and 4.27%. Some dates have higher assigned carbon after shifting. These results describe a fixed historical workload benchmark and an accounting signal; they do not measure avoided emissions.

• Published, Reproduced, Reviewed.Published, Reproduced, Reviewed: In the frozen Great Britain daily-batch benchmark, seasonal profiles trained on 2023 data reduce assigned carbon versus uniform processing by 11.63% and 12.81% at 50% utilization with zero idle power in 2024 and 2025, but by 3.88% and 4.27% when idle power is 50% of maximum; at 87.5% utilization with zero idle power the reductions are 3.37% and 3.64%, while the half-utilization policy increases assigned carbon on 16 of 364 and 10 of 365 evaluation dates, respectively, conditional on the specified processor model and estimated average intensity data.

Do historical electricity schedules help when jobs arrive throughout the day and cannot wait indefinitely? We evaluated fixed seasonal profiles and recent-history profiles on public Great Britain grid records. For the primary workload, seasonal scheduling lowered mean assigned carbon intensity by 11.24% in 2024 and 12.01% in 2025 relative to immediate execution. Yet 17.61% and 15.55% of jobs received higher intensity. Recent-minus-seasonal mean differences were -0.21 and -0.07 g CO2/kWh. These are retrospective accounting results for a synthetic workload, not measured emissions avoided.

• Published, Reproduced, Reviewed.Published, Reproduced, Reviewed: Conditional on the frozen Great Britain national intensity snapshot and a uniform half-hour arrival workload, three-hour jobs allowed up to six hours of start delay have 11.24% and 12.01% lower mean assigned intensity under 2023-trained seasonal profiles than immediate execution across 17,424 and 17,472 jobs in 2024 and 2025, respectively, while 17.61% and 15.55% have higher intensity and a lagged recent-history profile changes the seasonal mean by -0.21 and -0.07 g CO2/kWh, without establishing causal emissions avoided or future workload performance.

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.