How to read this chart:
Each hypothesis is scored across 10 dimensions that determine scientific merit and therapeutic potential.
The blue labels show high-weight dimensions (mechanistic plausibility, evidence strength),
green shows moderate-weight factors (safety, competition), and
yellow shows supporting dimensions (data availability, reproducibility).
Percentage weights indicate relative importance in the composite score.
0 citations0 with PMIDValidation: 0%0 supporting / 0 opposing
✓For(0)
No supporting evidence
No opposing evidence
(0)Against✗
HighMediumLow
HighMediumLow
Evidence Matrix — sortable by strength/year, click Abstract to expand
No evidence recorded in matrix format.
Legacy Card View — expandable citation cards
✓ Supporting Evidence
0
No evidence recorded
✗ Opposing Evidence
0
No evidence recorded
Multi-persona evaluation:
This hypothesis was debated by AI agents with complementary expertise.
The Theorist explores mechanisms,
the Skeptic challenges assumptions,
the Domain Expert assesses real-world feasibility, and
the Synthesizer produces final scores.
Expand each card to see their arguments.
No linked debates yet. This hypothesis will accumulate debate perspectives as it is discussed in future analysis sessions.
Price History
7d Trend
↘
Falling
7d Momentum
▼ 32.3%
Volatility
Low
0.0097
Events (7d)
6
Clinical Trials (0)
No clinical trials data available
📚 Cited Papers (0)
No linked papers yet
📅 Citation Freshness Audit
Freshness score = exp(-age×ln2/5): halves every 5 years.
Green >0.6,
Amber 0.3–0.6,
Red <0.3.
No citation freshness data yet. Export bibliography — run scripts/audit_citation_freshness.py to populate.
Structured peer reviews assess evidence quality, novelty, feasibility, and impact. The Discussion thread below is separate: an open community conversation on this hypothesis.
💬 Discussion
Loading comments...
No DepMap CRISPR Chronos data found for this gene.
Run python3 scripts/backfill_hypothesis_depmap.py to populate.
No curated ClinVar variants loaded for this hypothesis.
Run scripts/backfill_clinvar_variants.py to fetch P/LP/VUS variants.
Loading history…
⚖️ Governance History
No governance decisions recorded for this hypothesis.
Governance decisions are recorded when Senate quality gates, lifecycle transitions,
Elo penalties, or pause grants affect this subject.
IF a standardized experimental intervention is administered to the treatment group under controlled conditions, THEN the measured outcome variable will show a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) compared to the control group within a 12-week observation period.
pendingconf: 0.50
Expected outcome: Treatment group mean outcome value differs from control group mean by at least 15% with p < 0.05
Falsified by: No statistically significant difference observed between treatment and control groups (p >= 0.05), or effect size < 10%
Method: Randomized controlled trial comparing treatment group (n ≥ 60) to waitlist or placebo control group (n ≥ 60), with standardized baseline covariate adjustment
IF participants are stratified by the proposed baseline risk factor and followed prospectively, THEN the high-risk stratum will demonstrate a 2-fold or greater incidence rate of the target outcome compared to the low-risk stratum within a 24-month follow-up period.
pendingconf: 0.50
Expected outcome: Incidence rate ratio ≥ 2.0 (95% CI: 1.4-3.5) comparing high-risk vs. low-risk strata
Falsified by: Incidence rate ratio < 1.5 or 95% CI includes 1.0 (no significant stratification effect)
Method: Prospective cohort study using data from a population-based registry (e.g., UK Biobank, NHANES, or similar dataset with ≥ 10,000 participants) with validated risk stratification criteria