Does the brain's wiring predict where Parkinson's spreads? A separate rebuild
✓ Numbers check out
0.696 match score, where 1 is perfect, the paper
0.6960522094835953 match score, where 1 is perfect, the Lab
Counts as holding up
The code and data produced the same result. That doesn't prove the study's method is right.
The write-up for this result is on its way. The verdict and numbers above are final.
- What the paper said
- Pearson's r 0.696 (Henderson et al.), 0.696 (Replication). Table 2 of the ReScience C article
- What we got
- 0.6960522094835953
- Whose code ran
- Independent rebuild
- How well known
- Cited by 302 studies
- What forecasters thought
- 50% expected it to hold up when forecasting closed. The forecast price never changes the verdict.
- Proof
- Read the receipt or see claim 21
What we didn't check
- Whether the sample was fair or large enough.
- Whether test data leaked into training or tuning.
- Whether the result holds on new data.
- Whether the study's method was the right one for its question.
- Whether results in mice carry over to people.
Community notes
Notes are people's own words, kept on the blockchain. They never change a verdict, and the Lab's AI never reads them. Posting costs a little NEAR for storage, and what isn't used comes back.