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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.