Literature notebook: study design, measurements and translation limits · RESEARCH-31198

Case 15 — Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly

Summary draft for “Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly”: the answer addresses “Report effect size, confidence interval and the outcome scale…”; the related point is “Statistical significance alone does not establish…”. Keep both connected to the opening question, and mark any conclusion needing further records as unresolved. Review focus: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.

Case 16 — A correction log for an archive article

A transcription error changes the units in a figure caption. How should the archive record be repaired?

Exercise RESEARCH-31198/16: address this question within its stated limits.

Case 16 — A correction log for an archive article

Identify the original error and the corrected text, date the correction and link the source. Keep the correction visible to readers who may have saved or cited the earlier version.

Case 16 — A correction log for an archive article

Clarification for “A correction log for an archive article”: the point beginning “Identify the original error and the corrected text, date…” belongs to the question as written. It should not be read as a report that a new check, purchase or experiment has been completed. Review focus: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.

Case 16 — A correction log for an archive article

Method note for “A correction log for an archive article”: use “Identify the original error and the corrected text, date…” as a row heading in a proposed working record. Put the statement, its supporting source or measurement, and any unresolved detail in separate fields. This proposes a format; it supplies no additional evidence. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.

Case 16 — A correction log for an archive article

Correction note for “A correction log for an archive article”: retain the wording beginning “Identify the original error and the corrected text, date…” in the record. If later material changes it, add the date, the changed wording and the source for that change; do not invent a completed correction here. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.

Case 16 — A correction log for an archive article

Limit of the answer in “A correction log for an archive article”: “Identify the original error and the corrected text, date…” is an excerpt from the discussion, not an independent verification. A reader needs the relevant original material before treating an interpretation as established. Review focus: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.

Case 16 — A correction log for an archive article

Summary draft for “A correction log for an archive article”: the answer addresses “Identify the original error and the corrected text, date…”; the related point is “Keep the correction visible to readers who may have…”. Keep both connected to the opening question, and mark any conclusion needing further records as unresolved. Review focus: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.

Case 17 — Animal evidence and the limits of translation

An animal experiment is cited as though it establishes a human outcome. What qualification is required?

Exercise RESEARCH-31198/17: address this question within its stated limits.

Case 27 — A durable glossary entry for an ambiguous abbreviation · source wording exercise

Limit of the answer in “A durable glossary entry for an ambiguous abbreviation”: “Add a cross-reference for alternate meanings rather than assuming that every…” is an excerpt from the discussion, not an independent verification. A reader needs the relevant original material before treating an interpretation as established. Review focus: source wording. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase.

Case 26 — Clinical questions in an archive discussion · source wording exercise

Clarification for “Clinical questions in an archive discussion”: the point beginning “Individual decisions belong with a qualified clinician who…” belongs to the question as written. It should not be read as a report that a new check, purchase or experiment has been completed. Review focus: source wording. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase.

Case 34 — Correlation in a small observational dataset · source wording exercise

Two variables move together in a small sample. What would a careful discussion acknowledge?

Review focus: source wording. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase. Use the original answer fragment “Association does not identify direction or causation, and…” as the discussion anchor; no new event or result is supplied.

Exercise RESEARCH-31198/34: address this question within its stated limits.

Case 17 — Animal evidence and the limits of translation

Describe the species, model and outcome actually studied. Differences in biology and study conditions limit translation; the finding is not a clinical recommendation.

Case 25 — Data provenance: keep source, transformation and output together · source wording exercise

Reader check for “Data provenance: keep source, transformation and output together”: distinguish the discussion point “Make synthetic examples explicit and never combine them…” from its proposed application. The thread offers a way to reason about the question, without adding a personal experience or a newly observed outcome. Review focus: source wording. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase.

Case 17 — Animal evidence and the limits of translation

Clarification for “Animal evidence and the limits of translation”: the point beginning “Describe the species, model and…” belongs to the question as written. It should not be read as a report that a new check, purchase or experiment has been completed. Review focus: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.