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.
5 citations5 with PMID5 mediumValidation: 0%5 supporting / 0 opposing
✓For(5)
5
No opposing evidence
(0)Against✗
HighMediumLow
HighMediumLow
Evidence Matrix — sortable by strength/year, click Abstract to expand
Evidence Types
3
1
1
MECH 3CLIN 1GENE 0EPID 1
Claim
Stance
Category
Source
Strength ↕
Year ↕
Quality ↕
PMIDs
Abstract
Double-blind test of the effects of distant intent…
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.
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 novel intervention targeting the unspecified mechanism is administered to a treated cohort THEN measurable changes in the primary outcome variable will be observed within 12 weeks compared to the control group.
pendingconf: 0.50
Expected outcome: A statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) in the primary outcome measure between treatment and control groups
Falsified by: No significant difference between groups (p >= 0.05) or worse outcomes in the treatment arm
Method: Randomized controlled trial with 200 participants (100 per arm), measuring pre-specified biomarker levels at baseline, week 4, week 8, and week 12
IF participants are stratified by the proposed target biomarker THEN differential treatment response will be detected between high-expression and low-expression subgroups within 8 weeks.
pendingconf: 0.50
Expected outcome: High-expression subgroup shows ≥30% improvement compared to low-expression subgroup on the primary endpoint
Falsified by: No significant difference in treatment response between biomarker expression strata, or reverse effect direction
Method: Prospective cohort study with biomarker-based stratification (n=150 total, stratified into tertiles), with standardized outcome assessment at weeks 4 and 8