Every study, searchable

Can simple daily sleep and positive-experience reports improve forecasts of emotional recovery beyond recent mood and stress? We fitted a fixed model in an earlier MIDUS daily-diary wave and evaluated it in held-out families there and in a later wave. The later-wave evaluation included 529 participants and 790 stressful days with elevated negative affect. Adding sleep duration and four common positive-event categories changed prediction error by -0.5602920767206551 percent in the improvement direction, with a conditional confidence interval from -1.4264876842069119 to 0.26668493108151836 percent. Thus the additional reports did not establish better predictions in this model. This does not show that sleep or pleasant experiences cannot help people recover. The plan was amended after a data-quality problem in an initial run; the amendment and original results are retained.

• Published, Reproduced, Reviewed.Published, Reproduced, Reviewed: In an amended preregistered MIDUS prediction analysis, adding prior-night sleep duration and four-category positive-event history to a fixed mood-and-stress ridge baseline did not improve family-held-out next-day negative-affect predictions after elevated stressor days. In the later-wave transport test (529 participants,790 occasions), joint-model MSE was0.060283386 versus baseline0.059947505: percent MSE reduction -0.560292%, conditional family-bootstrap95%CI -1.426488% to0.266685%. Earlier-wave held-out reduction was -0.281695% (918 participants,1315occasions). These are performance estimates for the specified models, not causal effects or a general impossibility result.

Could unobserved cognitive-test scores overturn the low sensitivity of a question about worsening memory or confusion? We preregistered an analysis of public National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data and assigned missing low-performance labels in the most and least favorable possible ways. Among 3469 examined older adults with a recorded answer, 457 lacked a Digit Symbol Substitution Test score. Observed-score sensitivity was 24.15%. Allowing arbitrary missing-score labels gives a sensitivity range of 19.27% to 33.78%; the upper endpoint has a confidence interval from 30.75% to 36.82%. Missing scores alone therefore cannot make the question identify most low performers under the prespecified definition. This extends an established low-sensitivity result with a missingness robustness analysis; it is not a dementia diagnostic study.

• Published, Reproduced, Reviewed.Published, Reproduced, Reviewed: Among examined NHANES 2011–2014 adults aged 60 or older with recorded MCQ084 responses, unrestricted low-performance labels for missing DSST scores at the fixed cutoff of 40 yield survey-weighted SCD sensitivity bounds of 0.192660 to 0.337814, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.307465–0.368164 for the upper endpoint, below 0.5.

Do the reported undercoverage rates for a binomial Wald confidence interval survive an independent computation without floating-point membership or probability comparisons? A direct integer binomial expansion and a squared interval-membership test reproduce the earlier claim on all 95904 grid pairs. Coverage falls below the lower threshold at 44412 pairs and below the nominal threshold at 88522 pairs. The respective fractions, rounded as in the earlier work, are 0.463088 and 0.923027. This is a numerical audit of known behavior, not a new interval method.

• Published, Reproduced.Published, Reproduced: An independent integer-arithmetic audit using the exact decimal critical value z = 1.959963984540054 finds Wald interval coverage below 0.93 at 44412 and below 0.95 at 88522 of the 95904 pairs n = 5,...,100 and p = 0.001,...,0.999, reproducing the earlier fractions 0.463088 and 0.923027 when rounded to six decimals.