Open proof
We re-ran the arithmetic in 32 reported results. 1 did not reconcile with the paper's own figures.
Not a summary and not a search. Each line below takes the numbers a paper reports and recomputes the figure the paper states beside them. Where the two disagree, it says so, and shows the sentence it came from. No account is needed to check any of it.
A figure that does not reconcile is not misconduct and not a refutation of the paper's conclusion. It is a number that does not follow from the numbers printed next to it — rounding, a changed denominator and a typesetting error all look like this, and all are worth a reader knowing before they cite it.
- CC BY 4.0
Quantifying the impact of physical distance measures on the transmission of COVID-19 in the UK
doi:10.1186/s12916-020-01597-8
The clearest recomputation there is: 508/3824 is 13.28%, and the paper reports 13.2%. A reader needs no statistics to check it.
Did not reconcilethe figure does not follow from the numbers reported beside it
508/3824 = 13.28%, paper reports 13.2% (±0.05)
paper printed 13.2recomputed 13.2845allowed difference ±0.05
Roundingthe figure is the rounded form of what the counts give — a reporting convention, not an error in the work
Participants reported data on a total of 3824 household members, including themselves, of whom 508 (13.2%) had been asked to quarantine and 826 (21.6%) had been asked to isolate.
Reproducedrecomputed from the paper's own numbers and agreed
estimate 0.62 lies within its reported interval [0.37, 0.89] (±0.005)
paper printed 0.62recomputed 0.62allowed difference ±0.005
This would be sufficient to reduce R0 from 2.6 prior to lockdown to 0.62 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37–0.89) after the lockdown, based on all types of contact and 0.37 (95% CI = 0.22–0.53) for physical (skin to skin) contacts only.
Reproducedrecomputed from the paper's own numbers and agreed
estimate 0.37 lies within its reported interval [0.22, 0.53] (±0.005)
paper printed 0.37recomputed 0.37allowed difference ±0.005
This would be sufficient to reduce R0 from 2.6 prior to lockdown to 0.62 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37–0.89) after the lockdown, based on all types of contact and 0.37 (95% CI = 0.22–0.53) for physical (skin to skin) contacts only.
Reproducedrecomputed from the paper's own numbers and agreed
estimate 0.62 lies within its reported interval [0.37, 0.89] (±0.005)
paper printed 0.62recomputed 0.62allowed difference ±0.005
We estimated the current R0 under physical distancing measures to be 0.62 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37–0.89) based on all types of contact (Fig. 1).
Reproducedrecomputed from the paper's own numbers and agreed
estimate 0.37 lies within its reported interval [0.21, 0.52] (±0.005)
paper printed 0.37recomputed 0.37allowed difference ±0.005
Based on physical contacts only, we estimated R0 to be 0.37 (95% CI = 0.21–0.52).
Reproducedrecomputed from the paper's own numbers and agreed
estimate 0.69 lies within its reported interval [0.42, 0.98] (±0.005)
paper printed 0.69recomputed 0.69allowed difference ±0.005
Under this assumption, the estimated value of R0 for all contacts would be 0.69 (95% CI 0.42–0.98) and 0.37 (95% CI 0.22–0.53) if physical contacts alone result in transmission.
Reproducedrecomputed from the paper's own numbers and agreed
estimate 0.37 lies within its reported interval [0.22, 0.53] (±0.005)
paper printed 0.37recomputed 0.37allowed difference ±0.005
Under this assumption, the estimated value of R0 for all contacts would be 0.69 (95% CI 0.42–0.98) and 0.37 (95% CI 0.22–0.53) if physical contacts alone result in transmission.
Reproducedrecomputed from the paper's own numbers and agreed
estimate 0.62 lies within its reported interval [0.37, 0.89] (±0.005)
paper printed 0.62recomputed 0.62allowed difference ±0.005
If similar changes are observed across the UK population, we would expect the basic reproduction number to now be below 1 (0.62; 95% CI 0.37–0.89) and that these physical distancing measures will lead to a decline in cases in the coming weeks.
Reproducedrecomputed from the paper's own numbers and agreed
estimate 0.62 lies within its reported interval [0.37, 0.89] (±0.005)
paper printed 0.62recomputed 0.62allowed difference ±0.005
If similar changes are observed across the UK population, we would expect the basic reproduction number to now be below 1 (0.62; 95% CI 0.37–0.89) and that these physical distancing measures will lead to a decline in cases in the coming weeks.
Reproducedrecomputed from the paper's own numbers and agreed
826/3824 = 21.6%, paper reports 21.6% (±0.05)
paper printed 21.6recomputed 21.6004allowed difference ±0.05
Participants reported data on a total of 3824 household members, including themselves, of whom 508 (13.2%) had been asked to quarantine and 826 (21.6%) had been asked to isolate.
Every step that produced this record is written to a hash-chained ledger — 108 entries for this paper. Nothing above was typed by hand or edited afterwards without leaving a mark.
Quantifying the impact of physical distance measures on the transmission of COVID-19 in the UK · CC BY 4.0
- CC BY 4.0
Body mass index change trajectories and gastric cancer risk: Effect modification by sex, age, smoking, and menopausal status in Korean adults aged ≥40 years
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0350626
Fifteen checks, every one reproduced. The normal case, and the reason the disagreement above is a finding rather than noise.
Reproducedrecomputed from the paper's own numbers and agreed
estimate 0.9 lies within its reported interval [0.82, 1] (±0.005)
paper printed 0.9recomputed 0.9allowed difference ±0.005
In contrast, modest BMI gain from normal to overweight was associated with a reduced risk of gastric cancer in men (aHR 0.90; 95% CI: 0.82–1.00), smokers (aHR 0.88; 95% CI 0.79–0.99), and individuals aged < 60 years (aHR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77–0.98).
Reproducedrecomputed from the paper's own numbers and agreed
estimate 0.88 lies within its reported interval [0.79, 0.99] (±0.005)
paper printed 0.88recomputed 0.88allowed difference ±0.005
In contrast, modest BMI gain from normal to overweight was associated with a reduced risk of gastric cancer in men (aHR 0.90; 95% CI: 0.82–1.00), smokers (aHR 0.88; 95% CI 0.79–0.99), and individuals aged < 60 years (aHR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77–0.98).
Reproducedrecomputed from the paper's own numbers and agreed
estimate 0.87 lies within its reported interval [0.77, 0.98] (±0.005)
paper printed 0.87recomputed 0.87allowed difference ±0.005
In contrast, modest BMI gain from normal to overweight was associated with a reduced risk of gastric cancer in men (aHR 0.90; 95% CI: 0.82–1.00), smokers (aHR 0.88; 95% CI 0.79–0.99), and individuals aged < 60 years (aHR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77–0.98).
Reproducedrecomputed from the paper's own numbers and agreed
estimate 1.12 lies within its reported interval [1.06, 1.17] (±0.005)
paper printed 1.12recomputed 1.12allowed difference ±0.005
In the adjusted analysis, persistent obesity I was associated with an increased risk of gastric cancer (aHR 1.12; 95% CI 1.06–1.17) compared with persistent normal BMI (Table 2).
Reproducedrecomputed from the paper's own numbers and agreed
estimate 0.9 lies within its reported interval [0.82, 1] (±0.005)
paper printed 0.9recomputed 0.9allowed difference ±0.005
Modest BMI gain among normal weight (normal to overweight) was associated with a reduced risk of gastric cancer (aHR 0.90; 95% CI 0.82–1.00; p = 0.045), but marked BMI gain (normal to obesity I) is borderline associated with an increased risk of gastric cancer (aHR 1.28; 95% CI 0.99–1.65; p = 0.056) in men.
Reproducedrecomputed from the paper's own numbers and agreed
estimate 1.28 lies within its reported interval [0.99, 1.65] (±0.005)
paper printed 1.28recomputed 1.28allowed difference ±0.005
Modest BMI gain among normal weight (normal to overweight) was associated with a reduced risk of gastric cancer (aHR 0.90; 95% CI 0.82–1.00; p = 0.045), but marked BMI gain (normal to obesity I) is borderline associated with an increased risk of gastric cancer (aHR 1.28; 95% CI 0.99–1.65; p = 0.056) in men.
Reproducedrecomputed from the paper's own numbers and agreed
estimate 1.12 lies within its reported interval [1.05, 1.2] (±0.005)
paper printed 1.12recomputed 1.12allowed difference ±0.005
With respect to smoking status, persistent obesity I (aHR 1.12; 95% CI 1.05–1.20) and II (aHR 1.25; 95% CI 1.07–1.46) were associated with an increased gastric cancer risk among never smokers, whereas persistent obesity I (aHR 1.10; 95% CI 1.02–1.17) was associated with an increased gastric cancer risk and modest weight gain (normal to overweight) was associated with a reduced gastric cancer risk in ever smokers (Table 3 and Fig 2A).
Reproducedrecomputed from the paper's own numbers and agreed
estimate 1.25 lies within its reported interval [1.07, 1.46] (±0.005)
paper printed 1.25recomputed 1.25allowed difference ±0.005
With respect to smoking status, persistent obesity I (aHR 1.12; 95% CI 1.05–1.20) and II (aHR 1.25; 95% CI 1.07–1.46) were associated with an increased gastric cancer risk among never smokers, whereas persistent obesity I (aHR 1.10; 95% CI 1.02–1.17) was associated with an increased gastric cancer risk and modest weight gain (normal to overweight) was associated with a reduced gastric cancer risk in ever smokers (Table 3 and Fig 2A).
Reproducedrecomputed from the paper's own numbers and agreed
estimate 1.1 lies within its reported interval [1.02, 1.17] (±0.005)
paper printed 1.1recomputed 1.1allowed difference ±0.005
With respect to smoking status, persistent obesity I (aHR 1.12; 95% CI 1.05–1.20) and II (aHR 1.25; 95% CI 1.07–1.46) were associated with an increased gastric cancer risk among never smokers, whereas persistent obesity I (aHR 1.10; 95% CI 1.02–1.17) was associated with an increased gastric cancer risk and modest weight gain (normal to overweight) was associated with a reduced gastric cancer risk in ever smokers (Table 3 and Fig 2A).
Reproducedrecomputed from the paper's own numbers and agreed
estimate 0.54 lies within its reported interval [0.32, 0.92] (±0.005)
paper printed 0.54recomputed 0.54allowed difference ±0.005
Among premenopausal women, BMI loss from obesity I to overweight was associated with a reduced gastric cancer risk (aHR 0.54; 95% CI 0.32–0.92), whereas persistent obesity I (aHR 1.19; 95% CI 1.07–1.31) and BMI change from underweight to normal change from underweight to normal (aHR 1.50; 95% CI 1.04–2.18) were associated with an increased gastric cancer risk in postmenopausal women (S3 Table in S1 File; Fig 2B).
Reproducedrecomputed from the paper's own numbers and agreed
estimate 1.19 lies within its reported interval [1.07, 1.31] (±0.005)
paper printed 1.19recomputed 1.19allowed difference ±0.005
Among premenopausal women, BMI loss from obesity I to overweight was associated with a reduced gastric cancer risk (aHR 0.54; 95% CI 0.32–0.92), whereas persistent obesity I (aHR 1.19; 95% CI 1.07–1.31) and BMI change from underweight to normal change from underweight to normal (aHR 1.50; 95% CI 1.04–2.18) were associated with an increased gastric cancer risk in postmenopausal women (S3 Table in S1 File; Fig 2B).
Reproducedrecomputed from the paper's own numbers and agreed
estimate 1.5 lies within its reported interval [1.04, 2.18] (±0.005)
paper printed 1.5recomputed 1.5allowed difference ±0.005
Among premenopausal women, BMI loss from obesity I to overweight was associated with a reduced gastric cancer risk (aHR 0.54; 95% CI 0.32–0.92), whereas persistent obesity I (aHR 1.19; 95% CI 1.07–1.31) and BMI change from underweight to normal change from underweight to normal (aHR 1.50; 95% CI 1.04–2.18) were associated with an increased gastric cancer risk in postmenopausal women (S3 Table in S1 File; Fig 2B).
Reproducedrecomputed from the paper's own numbers and agreed
estimate 0.54 lies within its reported interval [0.32, 0.92] (±0.005)
paper printed 0.54recomputed 0.54allowed difference ±0.005
Notably, both the reduced risk associated with BMI loss from obesity I to overweight in premenopausal women (aHR 0.54; 95% CI 0.32–0.92) and the increased risk associated with BMI gain from underweight to normal in postmenopausal women (aHR 1.50; 95% CI 1.04–2.18) are based on small event counts with wide confidence intervals, and should therefore be regarded as hypothesis-generating rather than confirmatory.
Reproducedrecomputed from the paper's own numbers and agreed
estimate 1.5 lies within its reported interval [1.04, 2.18] (±0.005)
paper printed 1.5recomputed 1.5allowed difference ±0.005
Notably, both the reduced risk associated with BMI loss from obesity I to overweight in premenopausal women (aHR 0.54; 95% CI 0.32–0.92) and the increased risk associated with BMI gain from underweight to normal in postmenopausal women (aHR 1.50; 95% CI 1.04–2.18) are based on small event counts with wide confidence intervals, and should therefore be regarded as hypothesis-generating rather than confirmatory.
Every step that produced this record is written to a hash-chained ledger — 109 entries for this paper. Nothing above was typed by hand or edited afterwards without leaving a mark.
Body mass index change trajectories and gastric cancer risk: Effect modification by sex, age, smoking, and menopausal status in Korean adults aged ≥40 years · CC BY 4.0
- CC BY 4.0
Ovarian Cancer and Body Size: Individual Participant Meta-Analysis Including 25,157 Women with Ovarian Cancer from 47 Epidemiological Studies
doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001200
A pooled analysis of individual participant data, checked the same way as everything else. The method does not change the arithmetic.
Reproducedrecomputed from the paper's own numbers and agreed
estimate 1.07 lies within its reported interval [1.05, 1.09] (±0.005)
paper printed 1.07recomputed 1.07allowed difference ±0.005
The adjusted relative risk for ovarian cancer was 1.07 (95% CI, 1.05–1.09, p<0.001) for every 5 cm increase in height.
Reproducedrecomputed from the paper's own numbers and agreed
estimate 1.1 lies within its reported interval [1.07, 1.13] (±0.005)
paper printed 1.1recomputed 1.1allowed difference ±0.005
The relative risk of ovarian cancer increased with increasing body mass index among never-users of menopausal hormone therapy, but not among ever-users (relative risk per 5 kg/m2 increase in body mass index of 1.10 [95% CI, 1.07–1.13], p<0.001; and 0.95 [95% CI, 0.92–0.99], p = 0.02, respectively).
Reproducedrecomputed from the paper's own numbers and agreed
estimate 0.95 lies within its reported interval [0.92, 0.99] (±0.005)
paper printed 0.95recomputed 0.95allowed difference ±0.005
The relative risk of ovarian cancer increased with increasing body mass index among never-users of menopausal hormone therapy, but not among ever-users (relative risk per 5 kg/m2 increase in body mass index of 1.10 [95% CI, 1.07–1.13], p<0.001; and 0.95 [95% CI, 0.92–0.99], p = 0.02, respectively).
Reproducedrecomputed from the paper's own numbers and agreed
estimate 1.33 lies within its reported interval [1.2, 1.47] (±0.005)
paper printed 1.33recomputed 1.33allowed difference ±0.005
The stronger association with borderline than with fully malignant serous tumours remained (relative risks per 5 kg/m2 increase in body mass index of 1.33 [95% CI, 1.20–1.47] and 1.04 [95% CI ,1.00–1,09], respectively, p heterogeneity<0.001); for the other tumour types the corresponding relative risks among never-users of hormone therapy were 1.05 (95% CI, 0.93–1.17) for clear cell, 1.10 (95% CI, 1.02–1.19) for endometrioid, and 1.14 (95% CI, 1.06–1.22) for mucinous tumours.
Reproducedrecomputed from the paper's own numbers and agreed
estimate 1.04 lies within its reported interval [1, 109] (±0.005)
paper printed 1.04recomputed 1.04allowed difference ±0.005
The stronger association with borderline than with fully malignant serous tumours remained (relative risks per 5 kg/m2 increase in body mass index of 1.33 [95% CI, 1.20–1.47] and 1.04 [95% CI ,1.00–1,09], respectively, p heterogeneity<0.001); for the other tumour types the corresponding relative risks among never-users of hormone therapy were 1.05 (95% CI, 0.93–1.17) for clear cell, 1.10 (95% CI, 1.02–1.19) for endometrioid, and 1.14 (95% CI, 1.06–1.22) for mucinous tumours.
Reproducedrecomputed from the paper's own numbers and agreed
estimate 1.05 lies within its reported interval [0.93, 1.17] (±0.005)
paper printed 1.05recomputed 1.05allowed difference ±0.005
The stronger association with borderline than with fully malignant serous tumours remained (relative risks per 5 kg/m2 increase in body mass index of 1.33 [95% CI, 1.20–1.47] and 1.04 [95% CI ,1.00–1,09], respectively, p heterogeneity<0.001); for the other tumour types the corresponding relative risks among never-users of hormone therapy were 1.05 (95% CI, 0.93–1.17) for clear cell, 1.10 (95% CI, 1.02–1.19) for endometrioid, and 1.14 (95% CI, 1.06–1.22) for mucinous tumours.
Reproducedrecomputed from the paper's own numbers and agreed
estimate 1.1 lies within its reported interval [1.02, 1.19] (±0.005)
paper printed 1.1recomputed 1.1allowed difference ±0.005
The stronger association with borderline than with fully malignant serous tumours remained (relative risks per 5 kg/m2 increase in body mass index of 1.33 [95% CI, 1.20–1.47] and 1.04 [95% CI ,1.00–1,09], respectively, p heterogeneity<0.001); for the other tumour types the corresponding relative risks among never-users of hormone therapy were 1.05 (95% CI, 0.93–1.17) for clear cell, 1.10 (95% CI, 1.02–1.19) for endometrioid, and 1.14 (95% CI, 1.06–1.22) for mucinous tumours.
Reproducedrecomputed from the paper's own numbers and agreed
estimate 1.14 lies within its reported interval [1.06, 1.22] (±0.005)
paper printed 1.14recomputed 1.14allowed difference ±0.005
The stronger association with borderline than with fully malignant serous tumours remained (relative risks per 5 kg/m2 increase in body mass index of 1.33 [95% CI, 1.20–1.47] and 1.04 [95% CI ,1.00–1,09], respectively, p heterogeneity<0.001); for the other tumour types the corresponding relative risks among never-users of hormone therapy were 1.05 (95% CI, 0.93–1.17) for clear cell, 1.10 (95% CI, 1.02–1.19) for endometrioid, and 1.14 (95% CI, 1.06–1.22) for mucinous tumours.
Every step that produced this record is written to a hash-chained ledger — 37 entries for this paper. Nothing above was typed by hand or edited afterwards without leaving a mark.
Ovarian Cancer and Body Size: Individual Participant Meta-Analysis Including 25,157 Women with Ovarian Cancer from 47 Epidemiological Studies · CC BY 4.0
How this is different from asking a model
Nothing above was generated. Each line is arithmetic executed against the figures a paper reports, and the result is whatever the arithmetic gave — including when it disagrees with the paper. A system that retrieves and summarises has no mechanism for that: it can quote the figure, and it cannot check it.
Every paper here is shown under its own licence, credited as that licence requires, and re-checked against its rights record each time this page is built.