Input: Claim: Cryptocurrencies are volatile and can experience rapid value changes. [SEP] Text: If these governments intend to create simply a true decentralized competitor to Bitcoin, then they would face two problems: (1) a government would never be able to compete against the decentralization level of Bitcoin and (2) with a decentralized coin, the government would lose all its benefits of controlling the national currency, that is, by replacing fiat currency with cryptocurrency, the government literally kills the goose that lays golden eggs. If the government plans on creating a centralized coin (i. e. , government-controlled currency), then it could not rely on the good reputation of decentralized coins. In this case, the government would encounter a great difficulty to sell the coin to the Bitcoin community (see what happens with the new Venezuela’s Petro). Governments can confront the problem differently, and it can try to ban Bitcoin. This is evidently possible de jure but not de facto. The more the government manipulates the currency, the more the people need cryptocurrencies (see, e. g. , the case of Zimbabwe, India, and Venezuela). Advertisement 9. Technology-based money There is a good question regarding Bitcoin’s longevity. Bitcoin, the claim argues, is a technological invention. In principle, there is no reason that it would not be defeated by competing technologies. Unlike gold, which would exist forever, Bitcoin is a technology that changes in time. This is an interesting argument; however, in fact, this argument only emphasizes the similarities between gold and Bitcoin. Gold is here to stay, but so does Bitcoin. Actually, due to its decentralization, it would be extremely difficult to eliminate the entire Bitcoin blockchain. To achieve that, every copy of the blockchain should be erased. The chances of that are extremely low. Clearly, the value of the blockchain can decline substantially, but this is equivalent to a decline in the price of gold due to a lack of (technological or financial) interest. Therefore, gold is not better money than Bitcoin due to the fact that “while Bitcoin can be overthrown by competitive technologies, gold will exist forever. ” In fact, they both will probably survive for a very long time, and both may lose their value due to competitive technologies, because, in its essence, gold is also a monetary technology. Having said that, it must be emphasized that a replacement of a monetary technology is a very challenging task. Financial markets are very conservative.

Output: corroborate


Input: Claim: AI can help identify patterns in medical data that might be missed by human analysis. [SEP] Text: 5 ml/kg) prior to contrast. Both groups received sodium bicarbonate infusion for 6 h after contrast infusion was complete. Serum creatinine and blood urea nitrogen levels were checked on arrival, post-procedure days 2 and 3, and on discharge. CIN was defined as an increase of creatinine of 0. 5 mg/dL or 25% above baseline by day 2 post-procedure. Comparison of baseline and post-procedure variables was made with the t test, chi-square test, or Fisher’s exact test. Independent factors associated with CIN were determined by multivariate logistic regression. Results: Fifty-nine patients were included out of a targeted 80. Early analysis revealed that sodium bicarbonate substantially decreased the incidence of CIN, thus, enrollment was halted early due to ethical concerns. Pretreatment was administered 2–21 min prior to contrast. The sodium chloride group had significantly higher creatinine levels on day 2 and at discharge over baseline and 28% developed CIN. There was no significant creatinine change overall for the sodium bicarbonate group and the incidence of CIN was 3%. No patients developed renal failure requiring dialysis. Conclusion: A single sodium bicarbonate bolus given <30 min prior to emergent contrast administration followed by bicarbonate infusion can prevent CIN in patients with baseline CKD. Critique: The current study is a modification of a previous trial (Masuda et al. Cardiol 2007; 100:781–6) where patients received either bicarbonate or saline pre- and post-emergent contrast administration. This study suggests that pre-contrast bicarbonate is important in preventing CIN. The safety profile appears acceptable without any patients developing heart failure during the treatment period. However, several patients in both groups developed congestive heart failure “sometime” after the protocol. The authors looked at a population with at least stage 3 CKD, the target population of the other bicarbonate studies. It would be interesting to see if there was a difference between patients with stage 3 versus stage 4 CKD. Implication for toxicologists: While the single bolus appears effective in this, and previous studies, to prevent CIN, it would be interesting to see a study comparing the efficacy of bicarbonate bolus to 1-h pre-contrast drip.

Output: pass


Input: Claim: Certain researchers argue that the properties of proteins can predict their functions accurately. [SEP] Text: I already said that my minor points often are a matter of taste and you (the authors) disagree with some of them, while you clarify others. In the former case, your arguments are considerate. More importantly, I think my major concerns are well addresses. In some cases I seem to have missed some details, but it is helpful to guide the reader. In this regard, I think you have managed to make the Report more reader friendly. I have no more comments and am looking forward to reading about the findings in this study. Evaluation round #1 DOI or URL of the report: Version of the report: 2 (Snapshot) Author's Reply, 08 Jul 2023 Download author's reply Download tracked changes file Decision by Chris Chambers, posted 20 Apr 2023, validated 21 Apr 2023 I have now received four very constructive and helpful evaluations of your Stage 1 submission. As you will see, the reviewers concur this is a valuable RR proposal that already comes close to meeting the Stage 1 criteria at PCI RR. think you will find the reviews helpful in strengthening the work even more prior to in-principle acceptance. Without summarising all of the insights, across the set of reviews the following issues struck me as particular headlines: (1) including a deeper reflection on the concept of generalisability and, in particular, the generalisability of this study itself, (2) addressing concerns about measurement validity, (3) elaborating a variety of additional key methodological details (including analysis plans and potential exclusion criteria), (4) tightening up of potential sources of bias resulting from some remaining researcher dfs, (5) justification of specific design decisions (including the participant pool), and (6) considering structural edits to improve the clarity of presentation. All of these issues are readily addressable as part of the regular Stage 1 review process, therefore I am happy to invite a comprehensive revision and response. Reviewed by Ian Hussey, 13 Apr 2023 Download the review Reviewed by Jim Grange, 19 Apr 2023 I think that the study addresses an interesting and timely topic, and an answer to the question posed by the research would definitely be of value. Although whether empirical effects generalise across different samples is of more importance than whether researchers can predict such generalisation, the current proposed research certainly fills an interesting gap in the literature and I am looking forward to seeing the outcome of this study.

Output: pass


Input: Claim: Cryptocurrencies are volatile and can experience rapid value changes. # factual [SEP] Text: Bitcoin may lose its hegemony in the crypto sphere; however, as was explained above, it would be very difficult for new networks to pose a real threat to Bitcoin due to its proven high security and reliability. 11. Bitcoin transactions are too slow and too expensive Recently, the Bitcoin adversaries took advantage of the heavy load on the Bitcoin network, which caused slow and high fee transactions, to claim that the Bitcoin does not deliver its promises—Bitcoin transactions are too slow and too expensive. Soon, they predict, the Bitcoin network will be so cumbersome, that transactions will become unfeasible, and the Bitcoin project will be abandoned. This is indeed a problem. But this is a technological problem and not a fundamental one. It may explain why the Bitcoin market dominance declines, but it can never be used to explain why Bitcoin should be worthless. Clearly, the Bitcoin developers are aware of these problems and work constantly to mitigate the harmful effects of the network load. Several technological improvements have been suggested and implemented (SegWit, lighting network, atomic swap, and even raising block size in a forked versions of Bitcoin). Moreover, there are countless other currencies, whose transactions are much quicker and cheaper, and yet their value is considerably lower than the value of the Bitcoin network. Despite the fact that the technology is yet in its infancy stages, and there are still numerous technological challenges, the value of Bitcoin keeps on growing. Therefore, these facts should be an argument for Bitcoin and not against it, because these problems show that the need for reliable decentralized currency in the modern markets is so high, that people keep purchasing it despite the high transaction costs (and despite the fact that there are low cost but less proven alternatives). 12. Currencies backed by nothing A very popular argument against cryptocurrencies is that they are backed by nothing: “They are neither backed by gold nor are they backed by governments. ” Clearly, these are two different arguments. President Nixon, in 1971, was responsible to complete the monetary experiment that began at 1944 with the system. Since then, there is not a single fiat currency in the entire globe, which is backed by gold or by any other commodity. Hence, a commodity backup is not a crucial ingredient in the making of money. As for the second argument, what does it mean that the currency is backed by the government?

Output: corroborate


Input: Claim: AI can help identify patterns in medical data that might be missed by human analysis. [SEP] Text: This same ability to discern among patients brings with it the risk of amplifying existing biases, which can be especially concerning in sensitive areas like health care. 15,16 Because machine learning models are powered by data, bias can be encoded by modeling choices or even within the data itself. 17 Ideally, algorithms would have access to exhaustive sources of population EHR data to create representative models for diagnosing diseases, predicting adverse effects, and recommending ongoing treatments. 18 However, such comprehensive data sources are not often available, and recent work has demonstrated bias in critical care interventions. For example, recent Canadian immigrants are more likely to receive aggressive care in the ICU than other Canadian residents. 19 In contrast to critical care, psychiatry relies more heavily on analysis of clinical notes for patient assessment and treatment. Text is a rich source of unstructured information for machine learning models, but the subjective and expressive nature of the data also makes text a strong potential source of bias. 20,21 Racism has established impacts on chronic and acute health,22 which would affect EHR data. In addition, mental health problems of racial groups often depend heavily on the larger social context in which the group is embedded,22 which would also influence clinical prediction based on EHR data. In prior work, the first author and colleagues formalized a framework for decomposing sources of unfairness in prediction tasks, including an analysis of racial bias for prediction of hospital mortality from clinical notes. 23 In contrast to human bias, algorithmic bias occurs when an AI model, trained on a given data set, produces results that may be completely unintended by the model creators. The authors used the publicly available Mart for (MIMIC-III) v1. 4,24 which contains de-identified electronic health record data from 53 423 intensive care unit (ICU) admissions for 38 597 adult patients from Center from 2001 to 2012. After restricting the data set to ICU admissions lasting over 48 hours and excluding discharge summaries, the researchers created a final data set of 25 879 patient stay notes and demonstrated that prediction errors for patient mortality differ between races. 23 In this paper, we explore the potential impacts of bias in 2 algorithms, one for predicting patient mortality in an ICU and the other for predicting 30-day psychiatric readmission in an inpatient psychiatric unit.

Output: contrast


Input: Claim: Certain researchers argue that the properties of proteins can predict their functions accurately. [SEP] Text: I only have a few relatively minor points I hope the authors find of some use. I provide them in chronological order in which they appear in the manuscript. Page 3 - "Psychology's WEIRDness problem": Perhaps spell out what this initialism stands for on first use for readers unfamiliar with the term. Page 4, second paragraph - When discussing generalisability of an effect across methods & measures, it might be of use to cite the following paper which proposes a method to deal with this issue: Baribault, B. , et al. (2018). Metastudies for robust tests of theory. Proceedings of the of Sciences, 115(11), 2607–2612. 13 - The supplementary material were very clear and provided an excellsent overview of what the participants would experience. Thank you for including this. Page 14 - As you are providing reminders of effect size interpretations, is there a concern that predictions will "cluster" around the effect size boundaries of small, medium, and large? Is there a statistical consequence to such clustering if indeed it occurs (e. g. , reduction in variance)? Is there any way to encourage full use of the scale rather so this is minimised if there is a statistical concern? Related to this, as you are converting the effect sizes to Cohen's d before analyses, might it be worth using this metric when asking participants to estimate the effect size of the focal effect rather than using the original effect size metric (e. g. , odds ratios)? As you mention in the paper researchers (perhaps! ) have a better feel for Cohen's d so might lead to more accurate estimates. Page 18 - Thank you for including the R markdown html for the power analyses. This was very clear and comprehensive and sets the standard for how power analyses should be reported in studies. Page 20 - "No participants will be excluded from the analytic dataset". Will participants with missing data (e. g. , dropping out halfway through) still be included? If so, how will missing data be handled (e. g. , imputation? ) Signed: Jim Grange. Reviewed by Michèle Nuijten, 20 Apr 2023 The aim of this is to 1) investigate whether researchers can accurately predict generalizability of effects across global regions and 2) if certain researcher characteristics are related to prediction accuracy. I think this is an interesting and relevant research question and overall, the proposed research plan is solid.

Output: pass


Input: Claim: Cryptocurrencies are volatile and can experience rapid value changes. # factual [SEP] Text: Since economic calculations are essential to any modern economy [16], it is futile, according to them, to replace the current fiat currency with Bitcoin. However, economic calculations can be made with any commodity. When a businessman has four bottles of wines, and he needs to choose between two production alternatives: one alternative that will eventually yield three additional bottles and a second one that will eventually yield five bottles, he will choose the latter. The same thing applies to Bitcoin. Crypto traders already practice this kind of economic calculations using Bitcoin. However, volatility is indeed a problem (mainly in intra-temporal calculations, i. e. , interest rates), which prevents wide adoption. Nevertheless, as was explained above, the volatility gradually declines, and it is one of the infancy problems of Bitcoin, and it is not a fundamental one. 15. Bitcoin and the division of labor Division of labor cannot exist in a nonmonetary economy. The presence of money drives people to specialize and increases their productivity beyond their personal needs. They can trade the surplus of their production in order to pursue higher gratifications (for the analysis of production in the presence of specialization, see Ref. [26]). Therefore, any adoption of Bitcoin as a medium of exchange should be accompanied by an upgrade of the division of labor. Is there any evidence for this? The problem is that it is almost impossible to attribute scientifically a specific improvement in the division of labor to a specific cause. However, it is clear that if a person prefers using Bitcoin than other currency, then he must have found it useful and more efficient for him. Therefore, this individual can spend the surplus time in further specialization. Consequently, in a free market, any unregulated usage of Bitcoin (or anything else for that matter) is a circumstantial evidence for upgrading the division of labor. 16. Bitcoin and property rights Property rights are subtle issues. There is a fundamental claim that intangible objects, like digital assets or ideas, cannot be owned. The claim is based on the presumption that property rights and private ownership are essential to manage scarce resources in the real world. Thus, according to this view, only scarce resources (like, land, houses, gold, etc. ) can be owned, while resources that are not scarce (like, ideas, patents, text, digital pictures, etc. ) and that can be easily reproduced cannot be owned [27].

Output: corroborate


Input: Claim: AI can help identify patterns in medical data that might be missed by human analysis. [SEP] Text: Finally, the MTPN stop codon in the MTPN-LUZP6 transcripts is positioned in the terminal exon solely responsible for transcript NMD-immunity, while LUZP6 is encoded by a cryptic ORF positioned in the 3′ UTR region, which uses IRES and a non-AUG translation initiation codon [5]. Hence, in the four known human bicistronic examples, NMD-immune architecture is demonstrated. Yet, given the very few documented genes available, more evidence is necessary. Download: PPTPowerPoint slidePNGlarger imageTIFForiginal imageFigure 1. Known human polycistronic transcripts architecture. Exon junctions highlighted in bold, uncovered exon junction coordinates are indicated in bold; annotated CDS in turquoise; ORF in purple; and transcript coordinates are indicated. Novel polycistronic transcript prediction in the 3' UTR of penultimate or upstream NMD-eliciting transcripts Based on the architecture of the known bicistronic transcripts, we devised a strategy for the identification of novel polycistronic genes. Polycistronic transcript search was limited to potentially NMD-eliciting transcripts with an annotated stop codon positioned in the penultimate or upstream exon. Transcripts in which the annotated stop codon is positioned in the terminal exon (similar to the MTPN-LUZP6 gene) were excluded from this study due to the following reasons: (i) the vast majority of the known mammalian bicistronic genes share an NMD-immune architecture contributed by all functional CDSs; (ii) no other criteria were indicative enough: our preliminary results show that ORF coding potential alone is insufficient to distinguish functional ORFs from non-functional ones (data not shown). Furthermore, comparative genomics per se seem to be inadequate based on the lack of evolutionary conservation in the known bicistronic genes. In all, 30035 Refseq records were analyzed for potentially failing to fulfill the “55 nucleotides rule” and eliciting NMD, as detailed in the Methods section. Of these, 113 transcripts contained an annotated stop codon positioned 55 nucleotides or more upstream to the terminal exon-exon junction. Those were further analyzed for the existence of ORFs which are potentially capable of turning the transcript from NMD-eliciting into NMD-immune.

Output: pass


Input: Claim: Certain researchers argue that the properties of proteins can predict their functions accurately. [SEP] Text: I think this is an innovative and relevant way to make use of the extremely rich data of the PSA. I do still have some questions/remarks I would like the researchers to address. I will copy them in a numbered list below. I think the majority of these points could be addressed relatively easily. I am very curious to see the results of this project. Signed,Michèle Nuijten 1. I miss any remarks on the generalizability of the results of *this* study. It seems to me that although PSA researchers are likely from all over the world, they might not be representative for “psychology researchers” in general. I think it is important that the authors “practice what they preach” in a way, and make some sort of statement about this. 2. In the introduction, the authors clearly show a gap in the literature: there is research on prediction of effects, there is some research about predicting generalizability over time, but no prediction of effects across global samples. I think it would strengthen the argument if the authors also indicate what the main benefit of answering this question would be. Is the main point to assess potential generalization bias (as mentioned on p. 7)? Or could we use the results from this study in some way to come up with guidelines or advice for researchers along the lines of the Constraints on Generalizability statement? 3. The authors mention a host of different measures for researcher characteristics. I wonder about the validity of these measures. I would like to see some validity information about the scales that are planned to be used (open-minded thinking, need for cognition, and any other I’m forgetting here). 4. I think the paper could use an additional sentence or two on what it means to be a “member of the PSA”, since this describes the participant pool. 5. Three of the four PSA projects still need to be selected. What is the sampling plan for this? Are there any predetermined criteria that a project needs to meet before it is selected? Is there a set timeline (e. g. the first three projects that have a finished protocol)? 6. Again, I may have missed it (if so my apologies and please ignore this comment), but I don’t remember seeing a clear explanation of the different “sources” of data from each of the regions.

Output: pass


Input: Claim: Cryptocurrencies are volatile and can experience rapid value changes. [SEP] Text: The laser has no element that generates the “original” light (i. e. , the primordial photons), it only amplifies it. So where did the light originally come from? Well, actually, this is quite a mystery that nobody really knows. The source can be thermal noise, scattered light, or maybe the zero point energy. While academically it may be an interesting question, it is practically irrelevant to the laser operation. Moreover, it teaches us an important lesson—in the presence of a highly efficient amplifying process, the increase is exponential, and therefore the initial trigger is practically irrelevant. It doesn’t matter whether the process started from a single photon, ten photons or a hundred, the changes in the time till it reaches equilibrium (the time, in which it grows exponentially) is negligible. The same goes for Bitcoin. It was proven to be a rapidly accelerating phenomenon. In fact, just like the laser intensity or any other phenomenon with an approximately constant rate increase, the value of Bitcoin grew exponentially: within about 4 years it increased by a factor of a million! The technology was proven so successful that the initial value, people attributed to Bitcoin, is unimportant. The legendary pizza transaction, which allegedly determined its initial market value (in which a couple of pizzas were sold for 10,000 BTC), could be totally different. It could have been sold for 1000 or 100,000 BTCs, and the final outcome would be almost the same and it would be determined by the equilibrium value. In fact, the entire process can start from a whim of a handful of strange geeks (see, for example [35]). That is totally sufficient, exactly like the amplifying process in a laser, which can start, for all we know, from a single photon, which accidentally was present in the laser’s cavity. In the previous paragraphs, it was explained why one does not have to prove that Bitcoin currently has an intrinsic use value in order to show that its exchange value, that is, its value as a medium of exchange, does not contradict Mises’ regression theorem; nevertheless, Bitcoin had and still has an intrinsic use value. Clearly, even prior to the Pizza transaction, the initial miner group attributed value to Bitcoin since they spent their time and the energy consumption of their computers to generate these Bitcoins.

Output: corroborate


Input: Claim: AI can help identify patterns in medical data that might be missed by human analysis. [SEP] Text: Out of these, twelve are represented in the various datasets that were used for validation (C20orf203, -1, FRRS1, HMGB1, LOC401052, LOC442578, MGC119295, STAG3L3, TXNDC6, UTP14C, ZNF117 and ZNF841), mostly displaying NMD insensitivity (Table 5, Table S2B). ZNF841 exhibits NMD sensitivity in the sole experiment that monitored this gene, in mononuclear leukocytes taken from both healthy and prostate cancer patients (GSE24204). Three more genes display partial NMD sensitivity: The UTP14C gene displays a mixed expression pattern in different cell types, with NMD sensitivity in one experiment and insensitivity in three others. The FRRS1 gene exhibits NMD insensitivity in one experiment (GSE16170) using two treatments (Ago2 siRNA - targets CBP80/20-bound mRNAs and thus considered a regulator of NMD and UPF1 and Ago2 siRNA), and NMD sensitivity in another experiment, in mononuclear leukocytes of prostate cancer patients but not of healthy patients (GSE24204). Finally, the HMGB1 gene displays a mixed expression pattern, indicating NMD sensitivity in one out of 4 experiments. Yet in the same experiment, one HMGB1 probe produces an NMD sensitivity pattern while the other probe indicates NMD insensitivity (GSE29788). The probe which is responsible for the NMD sensitivity pattern identifies also an additional antisense transcript (AF83771), for which we have no CDS annotation, and thus may be an artifact. It may be argued that NMD inhibition is not be fully achieved in GINI experiments and thus lead to somewhat distorted results, yet several observations oppose this notion, including: different methods of NMD inhibition were undertaken in the various experiments analyzed; the mixed results of NMD sensitivity and insensitivity, which was limited to a narrow number of our genes and not for the entire array; and significant, high levels of expression displayed for only some of our genes. All these characteristics do not fit a general NMD-inhibition failure pattern. Download: PPTPowerPoint slidePNGlarger imageTIFForiginal imageTable 4. NMD sensitivity status of human bicistronic genes in published NMD-inhibition experiments.

Output: pass


Input: Claim: Certain researchers argue that the properties of proteins can predict their functions accurately. [SEP] Text: From the context I’m deducing that each region/country will collect a university sample and a non-university sample? Please make sure that this is clarified in the text. 7. The authors plan to measure many additional variables at the researcher level. I may have missed it, but for some of them, I can’t seem to find any hypotheses or analysis plans (task difficulty, demographics). For the ones that are planned to be included in the accuracy analyses (p. 21-22), I do not completely understand the rationale behind the analysis plan. understand the authors correctly, they first intend to correlate all measured researcher characteristics to prediction accuracy, and when a correlation is found (is there some sort of cut-off here? ), the characteristic will be added to a regression model? I’m not familiar with this analysis strategy, and I wondered if it would not be more straightforward to simply run a regression model including all the measured researcher characteristics and look at the resulting regression coefficients to judge which characteristics are important. Finally, there are *a lot* of characteristics added; did the authors take into account the risk of error inflation due to the large number of tests? 8. On p. 20 the authors state they will calculate “a correlation” between mean probability estimates of finding an effect in the subsamples and the binary outcome variable. Please specify the type of correlation that will be used (considering that the probability estimates are likely non-normally distributed, and one of the variables is binary). 9. This is a complex project with data and predictions at many different levels. This can sometimes result in unclear sentences. E. g. : “We will compare the responses on the overall prediction items to the overall results within each study. ” (p. 22). It is not clear to me which variables and items this refers to, exactly. Do the authors refer to all prediction items? At which levels? And what is meant by “overall results within each study”? Which results? Effect sizes? I had similar difficulties with wrapping my head around the distinction between the “aggregate-level analyses” and “prediction-level analyses”. It may help improve clarity if the authors also explain what the substantive difference/advantage/interpretation is of having these two levels in the analysis.

Output: pass


Input: Claim: Cryptocurrencies are volatile and can experience rapid value changes. # factual [SEP] Text: Nowadays, the fees of sending information over the blockchain are quite high, and therefore people seldom use the blockchain for broadcasting information. As a consequence, they tend to forget that the Bitcoin network has a clear nonmonetary use, and therefore it has a subjective use value. In any case, the fact that Bitcoin has a nonzero value does not and cannot contradict Mises’ regression theorem. 24. has many enemies, and, as a consequence, there are many arguments, which allegedly explains, why Bitcoin should be worthless or should be banned. The truth is that Bitcoin is extremely valuable and is here to stay because it cannot be banned. On the other hand, Bitcoin has many advocates, which use inaccurate arguments to justify the origin of its value. The fact that these arguments were presented by renowned economists shows us that our understanding about the origin of money did not change much during the last century. The mysterious gave us the opportunity to revive these century-old conundrums. The main conclusions are:Bitcoin is not a scheme; it is a great monetary invention, which has a clear economic value. It cannot and should not be banned by governments. In fact, any government’s manipulation and regulation emphasize and increase the need for cryptocurrencies. Criminals are not the only ones who see the benefits in using cryptocurrencies. In the third world (e. g. , Venezuela and Zimbabwe), cryptos are lifesavers. In general, cryptos are extremely valuable wherever censorship resistance is required, and in a global market economy, that fact creates value for everyone. Bitcoin does suffer from infancy problems (high volatility and high transaction costs); however, these issues are not fundamental and will be resolved eventually (we already see many signs for that). The fact that the crypto market exceeded 800B$, despite these issues, only emphasizes the need of the markets in them. The energy which is spent in crypto mining is not a wasted energy. It is the source of the network’s security which increases the trust in the system, and in a market economy trust is a very valuable commodity. The easiness in the creation of new coins is not equivalent to fiat money inflation. Fiat inflation is a counterfeiting process, while the creation of new cryptos is equivalent to the creation of a new invention, which may be better, but it has to surmount the former coins’ network effect. Bitcoin does not contradict any economical law.

Output: corroborate


Input: Claim: AI can help identify patterns in medical data that might be missed by human analysis. [SEP] Text: An efficient re-initiation site within a short distance of a nonsense mutation and in the same exon, was demonstrated to elicit NMD rescue and immunity of the transcripts [45], [46]. At times, escape was shown to be associated with the regulatory mechanism responsible for the introduction of the PTC (e. g. ApoB48 and thrombopoietin translation control) [47], [48]. Overall, 5. 8% protein isoforms of the database are derived from PTC containing transcripts, indicating its regulatory effect [49]. Hence, the existence of a PTC in a given transcript does not necessarily indicate the transcript's destiny, but may rather hint on regulatory stratification. The novelty of our work is in suggesting a yet undescribed connection between NMD and polycistronic gene architecture. In this study we hypothesized that human polycistronic mRNAs (and most likely mammalian ones in general) share a unique configuration, in which functional CDSs are mutually organized in an NMD-immune architecture. Indeed, we detected NMD-immune transcript architecture in the known human bicistronic genes. Further, we analyzed the human Refseq transcriptome, predicting the existence of 49 novel polycistronic transcripts. Bioinformatics-based analysis, indicating the existence of known protein domains in the predicted functional-ORFs encoded proteins or their similarity to known proteins, supports our assumption regarding the encoded proteins' potential to be produced and active. mRNA expression datasets from GINI experiments were utilized for experimental verification, aiming to explore whether the allegedly polycistronic transcripts are insensitive to NMD. All the known bicistronic transcripts and an additional eleven genes from our predicted gene list displayed NMD insensitivity for various NMD inhibitors, including emetine, caffeine and UPF1 and Ago2 siRNAs (other genes in our list were not sampled in those GINI experiments). The gene ZNF481, which was studied in a single experiment, displayed an NMD sensitive profile. An additional three of the eleven genes displayed a mixed expression pattern of both NMD sensitivity and insensitivity in different cell types, possibly manifesting time-dependent and process-dependent translation re-initiation regulation. Furthermore, some of the genes displayed significantly high levels of expression which do not fit the expression pattern of inefficient NMD.

Output: pass


Input: Claim: Certain researchers argue that the properties of proteins can predict their functions accurately. [SEP] Text: Reviewed by Matthias Stefan, 12 Apr 2023 The study examines, in the field of psychology, how well researchers can predict the generalizability of psychological effects and whether and which researcher characteristics influence prediction accuracy. My report is directly addressing the authors. My general assessment is that the research question is well defined, valid and timely; the hypotheses are well stated, coherent and precise; the procedure is feasible and the methodology proposed is sound. There is much to like about the registered report. Therefore, I have only few comments:The following points are major to me. I suggest to address them in a revised version of the registered report if you agree with my concerns and if I did not miss anything:- One major point is on the measure of generalizability: you ask researchers to estimate the “probability that a statistically significant focal effect (p <. 05) in the hypothesized direction will be observed”. In the paper you define this as “estimate [of] the probability that the expected effect will be observed”. understand correctly, this definition does not include the studies’ effect sizes. For example, if an effect is significant and has the same direction, but is substantially lower, you would still define this outcome as generalizable. think this is a fair approach, it still merits some open discussion. am wrong, maybe you can clarify your measure. - On the point of effect sizes, it would be interesting to have some discussion of effect sizes in your study on researchers’ prediction accuracy. I wonder what we can learn from (very) small effect sizes in your study. This is an important point, since your power analysis indicates more than 90% power to detect (very) small effects. If you find one, you should be able to determine if the effect is relevant or not in order not to be “overpowered” in your study. I wonder why you chose such high power? I was missing a discussion on this point. - One rather general comment is on the choice of the subject pool: your study is restricted to psychological researchers, i. e. , experts. While this might be the most interesting pool, it restricts generalizability to other researchers and potentially focuses on a biased group. For example, such researchers might be overoptimistic regarding their own field – or, alternatively, overly critical.

Output: pass


Input: Claim: Pollinators like bees are essential for the reproduction of many plants. # factual [SEP] Text: December 17, 2020 The bees are back in town: Pollinators in an urban ecosystem The growing urbanisation of the landscape poses a major threat to insect pollinators. The reduction in number of these insects, especially bee species, could have a severe impact on agricultural production as many of the crops that we rely on could not produce seeds without pollination. Working with the and investigate pollinator visitation to a small restoration site at in Florida, to compare pollinators in an urban ecosystem to those in a larger conservation area. Pollinators are any animals (usually insects) that transfer pollen from one flower to another, and without them around 75% of flowering plants would be unable to reproduce – including many species that we rely on for food and other products. The growth of towns and cities (‘urbanisation’) means the reduction in natural environments where these pollinator species thrive. While declines in European honeybee populations have drawn global attention because of their importance to crop pollination, declines in native species worldwide are causing concern for both agriculture and native plant reproduction. researchers Bennington and May investigate the pollinators visiting a small restoration area in an urban ecosystem to compare how the numbers and species of insects present compare to those found in a larger conservation area. The question is, does this small area provide enough habitat and food to support a diverse and abundant insect pollinator community? Jacob_09/Shutterstock. com In 2011 a small field located near the on the campus in Florida was selected to be restored to the natural sandhill ecosystem that would have dominated the area prior to urbanisation (European settlement). These sandhills are so called because of the deep, sandy soil of the area, but the dominant features of the landscape were the large, widely spaced pine trees. The sandhill restoration involved planting more than 80 native tree species, mostly longleaf pine, and the development of an understory of plants and grasses. This small fragment of restored ecosystem is still immature. The trees are young and don’t provide the same high, thick canopy as you would find in a more mature ecosystem, which affects the smaller plants growing below. Yet already you can see the difference from the neglected lawn that was there previously, especially as pollinators return to visit the many flowering plants. …the Ecosystem is now a teaching area to educate visitors about the natural landscape of the area and the native plants and insects.

Output: corroborate


Input: Claim: AI can replace doctors entirely for all diagnostic and treatment decisions. [SEP] Text: All of the patients were clearly informed about the various therapeutic modalities to manage their disease, the chances of success and the rates of complications of the medical therapy or endoscopic treatment. For each patients, we proposed an initial management of SOD by medical treatment, planned for a one-year duration; it consisted of a combined treatment, an association of trimebutine (200 mg three times per day) and nitrates taken sublingually when needed, mainly at the onset of abdominal pain. In the case of intolerance or counter-indication to the nitrates, a treatment with trimebutine alone was proposed. If previous treatment with trimebutine had been unsuccessful, only the nitrate derivatives were prescribed. If the painful attacks occurred too frequently (> 1 per week), a transdermal nitrate treatment (5 mg/d) was prescribed. The patients attended clinical follow-up consultations every four mo for a period of one year. After one year of medical therapy, an evaluation of painful symptoms was performed for each patient. The efficacy of the treatment was considered complete if there was a complete disappearance of the painful symptoms; the efficacy was considered partial if there was a greater than 50% reduction in the frequency and intensity of the pain and considered poor when the frequency and intensity of the pain decreased by less than 50%. In the cases where the medical treatment was only partially successful or poor, endoscopic sphincterotomy was proposed to the patients, but not to the remaining patients. If medical treatment was successful, endoscopic treatment was not proposed. When the indications for endoscopic treatment had been chosen, the patients received clear information concerning the procedure. The endoscopic treatment was performed under general anaesthesia and consisted of an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, with realization of a biliary sphincterotomy on patients with isolated biliary symptoms or dual sphincterotomy (biliary and pancreatic) on patients with both biliary and pancreatic symptoms. All of the patients were called by telephone to propose a follow-up examination with a hepatic biological assessment and an abdominal ultrasound in order to measure the diameter of the main biliary and pancreatic ducts; among the patients who refused this assessment, a simple evaluation of the clinical symptoms was proposed.

Output: contrast


Input: Claim: Certain researchers argue that the properties of proteins can predict their functions accurately. [SEP] Text: Just to be clear, I do not suggest to conduct a wider study, I just think it would be nice to see a discussion of the pool choice and the implications. One such implication is generalizability since your wording (e. g. , “researchers”) could suggest a generalization that might be unjustified. The discussion of researcher groups and their replicability forecast in Gordon et al. (2020) could be helpful. - I was a bit confused by the country/region choice: what exactly does “region” refer to. How do you derive at 15 countries and why do you choose 10 out of those 15? And why are prediction items presented in one out of eight possible orders instead of just using randomization? Similarly, why are you only including subsamples with 100 or more valid participants (page 14)? There must be a reason for this choice, but I did not find it. In the end, I am not sure I fully understood the details of data collection. - The following statements from your registered report are too general to be understood by the reader:“A single focal effect will be chosen from each study based on input from the proposing authors. The effect will be the result of a single inferential statistical test that answers a central research question from the project. Priority will be given to effects that are grounded in theory and supported by previous research. ”and“Single page project descriptions will be generated for each study and approved by the proposing authors of the project as a quality check. ”I think it would be helpful to give more details on your procedure. Here are some more minor points and I think they can be addressed in the main paper (i. e. , after data collection), if you agree with them or consider them helpful:- In general, it was not always easy for me to follow the manuscript. Some of my comments might be helpful for writing-up the paper:o I found the discussion of concepts interesting. However, for me it was difficult to follow this discussion until the second half of page 4, where you define which concept you are focusing on (generalizability across cultural context). Before this, I was missing a clear definition of relevant concepts in the context of your study. For instance, on page 4 you state that generalizability refers not only to settings and samples, but also to methods and measures.

Output: pass


Input: Claim: Pollinators like bees are essential for the reproduction of many plants. # factual [SEP] Text: This area, known as the Ecosystem, is now a teaching area to educate visitors about the natural landscape of the area and the native plants and insects. Anyone is welcome to visit the and take part in the – where volunteers can record pollinator activity and contribute to the ongoing data collection. and May are interested in how well this small area of restored sandhill ecosystem might support pollinators, in comparison to a larger natural area. Sandhill is surrounded by an urban ecosystem of residential, business and university campus areas. The ability of this and any small, isolated fragment of semi-natural habitat to support insect life depends upon its ability to provide suitable habitat for a diversity of species of plants and insects. The contrast to this fragment is the (DeLeon Springs, Florida), north of the campus, which is more than 5700 hectares of semi-natural habitat. This covers a variety of ecosystems including sandhills, and the plant understory of the sandhills is made up of many native flowering plants that attract many native pollinators. This means that the pollinators visiting the can be compared to the pollinators visiting the sandhills of to determine if the same number and species of pollinators are present in the urban ecosystem as in the larger natural area. Plant-pollinator interactions The pollinators we are most familiar with are bees, though other insects including wasps, butterflies, beetles, and flies are also common pollinators. Insects visit the flowers to access the nectar and pollen as a food source, and in the process carry pollen between plants. Some plants, referred to as ‘specialists’, are only pollinated by one group of insects (for example, they may only attract flies, or have the pollen situated such that only bees can collect it), and others may be ‘generalists’, meaning that any insect that visits the flower can collect or deposit pollen. To compare pollinators, two plants were selected that were present in both the Ecosystem and the – one generalist and one specialist. The two areas differ in the plant species present, due to a variety of factors including the maturity of the ecosystem and the soil quality, but Bidens alba (B. alba; a generalist) and Chamaecrista fasciculata (C. fasciculata; a specialist) were present in both ecosystems and are common in dry areas of Florida. C.

Output: corroborate


Input: Claim: AI can replace doctors entirely for all diagnostic and treatment decisions. [SEP] Text: It has been showed that and endoscopic treatment called endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) can improve symptoms but with a high level of complications. Pharmacologic agents have been tested in this pathology but are still disappointing. Research frontiersMany ways of treatment (medical, endoscopic) are still studied because none of them offer a satisfying and safe rate of prolonged improvement. Innovations and breakthroughsThe authors here demonstrate that, after a long follow-up (29 mo), a medical treatment with trimebutine can have the same success rate than ES. ApplicationsThe demonstration of a long-term efficacy of a medical conservative treatment is important because it can avoid the need for ES which is associated with morbidity and mortality after ES of 9. 8% and 2. 3% respectively. This study demonstrates that a medical conservative treatment with trimebutine may be an effective alternative to the endoscopic sphincterotomy since, after an intermediate follow-up, the two treatments show the same success rate. TerminologyThe sphincter of oddi is a muscular valve that controls the flow of digestive juices (bile and pancreaticjuice) through the ampulla of Vaterinto the second part of the duodenum. ES is an endoscopic technique developed to examine and treat abnormalities of the bile ducts, pancreas and gallbladder. The procedurew as developed as an extension to the diagnostic examination, endoscopic retrograde cholangio pancreatography; with the addition of “sphincterotomy”, abnormalities found during the study could be treated at the same time without the need for invasive surgery. Peer reviewThis study is about the results of a medical management of SOD after an intermediate follow-up. It is well-written. reviewers: 1100 Ninth Avenue, PO Box 900, Seattle, WA 98111-0900, United States; Ryu, Professor, Department of of Medicine, 28 Yeongeon-dong, Jongno-gu, Seoul 110-744, South KoreaS- JX L- E- JY 1. Lehman GA, Sherman S. Sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. Pancreatol. 1996;20:11-25. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This 0. 3] [Analysis (0)] 2. .

Output: contrast


Input: Claim: Certain researchers argue that the properties of proteins can predict their functions accurately. [SEP] Text: In your study, however, you only focus on the former. Moreover, a common understanding that replicability is related to statistical factors (such as sampling error), while generalizability is related to samples (e. g. participants, time period, cultural factors, etc. ). This understanding might be too narrow and definitions are not clear. Even more so, it would be helpful to clearly define the two concepts in the context of your study from the very beginning and maybe focus less on replicability. Another example again can be found on page 4: you discuss that generalizability can be related to methods or interpretation, without clearly separating the two concepts. It would be helpful to the reader early on to understand what you are focusing on in your study and which concepts are (ir)relevant. o You are asking participants about their prediction of moderators. This part of the study came as a surprise as moderatos are first mentioned on page 14. It has not been completely clear, how it relates to your research questions. o In the main paper, you could introduce the Accelerator, since readers from other fields (such as myself) might not be familiar with it. - Another minor point: Is the potential bias of predictions by desired results really motivated reasoning or not rather confirmation bias? Of course, the two concepts are closely related and might not even be clearly distinguishable. Reference:Gordon, M. , Bishop, M. , Chen, Y. , Dreber, A. , Goldfedder, B. , Holzmeister, F. , Johannesson, M. , Liu, Y. , Tran, L. , Twardy, C. , Wang, J. , & Pfeiffer, T. (2022). Forecasting the Publication and of Covid-19 Preprints. Open Science, 9: 220440.

Output: pass


Input: Claim: Pollinators like bees are essential for the reproduction of many plants. # factual [SEP] Text: fasciculata is ‘buzz-pollinated’, which means that the vibrations from the buzzing of a bee are required to release the pollen from the flower. It is expected that specialist plant species would suffer from the reduced number of available pollinators in an urban ecosystem more than a generalist plant species, and so it is of interest to compare the pollination visitation to both specialists and generalists in urban and conservation areas. Welcome visitors The researchers counted insect visitors to B. alba and C. fasciculata flowers at both sites between May and August over three years (2016 – 2018) and found a surprising result: there were slightly more pollinator visitations to both plants at the Ecosystem than at the Conservation Area. Although there was no statistical difference in the number of insects visiting the plants in each area, the total numbers were higher for the and this is not what was expected in the urban ecosystem. This research suggests that this small and immature fragment of restored habitat could be enough to support a community of bees in an urban ecosystem. Most of the visitors to both plants at both sites were native bees, but there was a much greater diversity of visitors to B. alba at the Conservation Area. Over 70% of pollinator visitation to B. alba at the were Hymenoptera (bees and wasps), but at the site they made up only 41% of visitors. Lepidoptera (moths and butterflies) made up 31% of visitors at Heart Island, and Diptera (flies) and Coleoptera (beetles) together made up another 14%. This means there is a much greater diversity of insects present at than at the Volusia Sandhill, where Lepidoptera, Diptera and Coleoptera all together only made up a little over 12% of the visitors to B. alba. As expected, the most common pollinator to visit C. fasciculata was the bumblebee (Bombus spp. ), and while there were slightly more visitors at the Volusia Sandhill, bumblebees were the large majority at both sites indicating no significant difference in the diversity of insect visitors to this plant. Urban pollinators This research suggests that this small and immature fragment of restored habitat could be enough to support a community of bees in an urban ecosystem.

Output: corroborate


Input: Claim: AI can replace doctors entirely for all diagnostic and treatment decisions. [SEP] Text: AI replace doctors’ ‘gut instincts’? Published on December 20, 2023 Doctors’ intuition plays a key role in healthcare, even when computers suggest another treatment approach. But with AI advancing, is that all about to change? Use + rapid advances in the field, AI won’t supplant human healthcare workers in 2024. : Pexels: to use -Edquist DOI 10. 54377/02d2-eea4 Doctors’ intuition plays a key role in healthcare, even when computers suggest another treatment approach. But with AI advancing, is that all about to change? The value of healthcare workers’ intuition in effective clinical care has been verified by reports around the world again and again. From doctors’ ability to spot sepsis in critically ill children, to ‘nurse worry‘ as a ‘vital sign’ predictive of patient deterioration, to helping GPs navigate complex patient care — intuition appears to play a large role in supporting high risk patients — even when data or computer outputs suggest another treatment approach. (AI) has already begun to transform healthcare, and the health sector will only continue to consider AI innovations in 2024 and beyond. In this increasingly technological world, questions swirl on what is the role of these human hunches in healthcare practice and whether AI is about to overtake doctors’ ‘gut feelings’ entirely. What is AI in healthcare and when is it used? Davenport from and Deloitte consultant explain elsewhere, AI healthcare includes ‘rule-based expert systems’, which use prescribed knowledge-based rules to solve a problem, and ‘robotic process automation’, which uses automation technologies to mimic some tasks of human workers. Such technology can help with automated patient monitoring, where alerts are signalled once a rule criterion is met, patient scheduling reminders and medicine management. Other forms of AI used in healthcare include robots, natural language processing and machine learning. Robots can help move and stock medical supplies, lift and reposition patients and assist surgeons. hospital has launched a €7 billion project, set to be completed in 2028, which will engage robots to collect patient data typically reliant on human physical touch: from measuring pulse, to taking temperature and calculating oxygen saturation. The release of ChatGPT in 2023 marked a leap forward for AI in popular consciousness.

Output: contrast


Input: Claim: Certain researchers argue that the properties of proteins can predict their functions accurately. [SEP] Text: Skip to Content eLife home page your research Search by keyword or author Reset form my search to Research 10. 7554/eLife. 89386. 2 Open access Copyright information Version of RecordDecember 22, 2023 Read the peer reviews Reviewed preprintAugust 8, 2023 Open annotations (there are currently 0 annotations on this page). 7,396 views 560 downloads 44 9386. Copy to clipboard Download BibTeX Download. RIS Full text Figures and data Peer review Side by side Peer review process #1 (Public Review): Reviewer #2 (Public Review): Author response Peer review process Version of Record: This is the final version of the 2. While the authors list their limited number of docking methods as a caveat, the fact that they use three state-of-the-art ligand docking methods is a strength of the work; many studies use just one. The rigorous analysis of the binding site RMSD and docked ligand pose RMSD is novel to my knowledge and is particularly insightful. Weaknesses: The authors are rigorous in their approach by using state-of-the-art workflows that are high-throughput in nature. However, human expert-refined models and expert selection from multiple models could improve the results of ligand pose prediction when using protein models. The authors alluded to this for traditional models but this can also be true when starting from AF2 models. This is difficult to test systematically and rigorously, however. One possible experiment is to explore whether using multiple AF2 models (there are five by default) would have an effect on pose accuracy, perhaps for selected examples such as NK1R, 5HT2A, and DRD1 to help build out the discussion further. Another possible weakness is that the authors focus only on GPCRs for reasons they state but make a good argument as to why the conclusions are likely to extend to other protein classes. Context: One of the most common and impactful uses of protein structures is in small molecule therapeutic chemical tool design. When no experimental structure is available, models are frequently used and such models include traditional template-based homology models and, more recently, AF2 models. AF2 is widely recognized as an inflection point in protein structure prediction due to the unprecedented accuracy of the protein structure models produced automatically.

Output: pass


Input: Claim: Pollinators like bees are essential for the reproduction of many plants. # factual [SEP] Text: Potentially this could also be assisted by the non-native plants in the gardens and green areas in the residential, business and university campus surroundings, and perhaps some cavity-nesting species can find suitable habitats on the sides of buildings. The study supports previous research which found that Hymenoptera are more resilient to urbanisation than other pollinator species. The species composition at each site varied a great deal, however, and so it seems that specific bee and wasp species are differently impacted by the changing ecosystem. The surface area available to ground-nesting species and other factors such as larval food supplies are likely to also play a role in determining which species thrive in an urban environment. The lack of the expected difference in visitation to C. fasciculata can most likely be explained as being due to the pollinator not being specific to the plant – C. fasciculata may rely on the bumblebee for pollination, but Bombus spp. can visit many plants including both specialists and generalists. The low numbers of beetle and butterfly visitors to the plants at the Ecosystem suggests these are more sensitive to urbanisation, and this is again likely due to these insects having requirements (other than food in the form of nectar) that are not met in an urban ecosystem. and May (and volunteers with the Pollinator Project) continue to record pollinator visitation to the Ecosystem each summer, and hope to attract a greater diversity of pollinators by increasing the available larval food sources and adding further flowers to provide resources to insects year-round. /Shutterstock. com What could this mean in terms of protecting native pollinator species against habitat destruction and climate change? <>Our research is consistent with that of others who have found that small urban ecosytems can provide habitat for plants and invertebrates in an increasingly human-dominated landscape, though the pollinator communities in urban fragments may be a novel mix of species. The extent to which these new, urban communities can also withstand accelerating climate change requires continued investigation The bees are back in town: Pollinators in an urban ecosystem was last modified: November 8th, 2023 Keywords: -pollinator interactionspollinator visitationpollinatorsin Floridaurban ecosytemsthis 178. Sandhill Ecosystem. [online]. webpage. Available at: [Accessed 18 Sept. 2020]. Pollinator Project. [online]. webpage.

Output: corroborate


Input: Claim: AI can replace doctors entirely for all diagnostic and treatment decisions. [SEP] Text: This type of AI, which requires training on large data sets (supported by human feedback), focuses on giving computers the ability to read, support and manipulate human language. Such natural language processing has changed the communication landscape with its language mimicry. While some note that the hype hasn’t quite been reflected in reality, professionals in a range of sectors — including healthcare — now use ChatGPT for correspondence, such as with drafting “sick notes”, medication management, or to manage healthcare information. There are predictions that healthcare Processing will be a $USD7. 2 billion business by 2028, with this type of AI being deployed to help translate complex published papers for public consumption, for analysis of electronic health records to help identify at-risk patients, and to interact with patients to help with triage or answer healthcare questions. In 2024, some say this type of AI is likely to focus on more sophisticated language models that power chatbots and virtual assistants, and will be built into word processing programs. gives computers the ability to learn without explicitly being programmed for a given task. The algorithms driving these types of AI are based on statistical and predictive models. often relies on ‘training’ from existing data sets, which have been human reviewed and annotated. Essentially, doesn’t automatically know what to look for, and without human-informed training this type of AI tends to provide lots of noise and useless predictions. Once trained, can take previously unseen patient information and apply its prior ‘training’ to analyse the data and predict outcomes, or make recommendations. In healthcare, can recognise patterns which may be missed by humans such as described for AI’s role in patient survival of gastric cancer, identification of primary causes of cancers, and reducing breast cancer false positives. In 2024, algorithms are likely to continue to be used for probing healthcare data analytics, with vast medical data provided by wearables, medical devices and electronic health records. With all forms of healthcare AI — it is clear that humans are still needed for AI training, evaluation of outputs, and considering the impacts of the AI recommendation. Artificial versus human intelligence: Who has the edge? Given the global healthcare workforce shortages, the proverb may be true: Necessity breeds invention.

Output: contrast


Input: Claim: Certain researchers argue that the properties of proteins can predict their functions accurately. [SEP] Text: Only a few examples of the systems used are shown even visually, leaving the reader unable to study more interesting cases in depth without re-doing the work themselves. The authors acknowledged that several recent studies exist in this space. They point out two advancements made in their work, worthy of further review. Similarly, it's important to evaluate the novelty of this work's claims vs previously available results, and the diversity of information made available to the reader. "First, we use structural models generated without any use of known structures of the target protein. For machine learning methods, this requires ensuring that no structure of the target protein was used to train the method. " This is done by limiting the scope of the work to GPCRs whose structures became available only after the training date of AlphaFold (April 30, 2018), as well as not using templates available after that date during prediction. The use of a time limit seems less preferable than the approach taken in Ref. 1 of discarding templates above a sequence identity cutoff. On the other hand, the 'ablation test' performed in Ref. 2 showed no loss in accuracy when no templates were used at all. Authors should discuss in more detail whether these modeling choices could change anything in their conclusions and why they made their choices compared to those in previous work. "Second, we perform a systematic comparison that takes into account the variation between experimentally determined structures of the same protein when bound to different ligands. " Cross-docking is indeed a more appropriate comparison than self-docking (as done in previous works), and the observation that the accuracy of AF models is similar to that between different holo structures of the same protein is interesting. Previous literature on cross-docking should however be discussed, and the well-known conclusions from it that small variations in side-chain positions, in otherwise highly similar structures, can lead to large changes in docked poses. It is important to realize that AlphaFold models are 'just another structure' - if previous literature is sufficient to show the sensitivity of rigid docking, doing it again on AF structures does not add to our understanding. Further, Ref. 3 might have already addressed the question of correlation between binding site RMSD and docking pose prediction accuracy - see e. g. 3 there (also Figure S15 in Ref. 2).

Output: pass


Input: Claim: Certain animal species are keystone species, influencing entire ecosystems. # factual [SEP] Text: Knowl. Manag. Aquat. Ecosyst. 2022, 423, 21Overlooked keystone species in conservation plans of fluvial ecosystems in Southeast Europe: a review of native freshwater crayfish species Milan Danilović1*, Ivana Maguire2 and Leopold Füreder1 1 University of Innsbruck, Faculty of Biology, Department of Ecology, Technikerstr. 25, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria 2 University of Zagreb, Faculty of Science, Department of Biology, Rooseveltov trg 6, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia * Corresponding author: milan. danilovic@student. uibk. ac. at Received: 6 November 2022 Accepted: 29 May 2022 a large number of rivers stretches in (SEE) have a pristine status compared to the rest of Europe, these ecosystems and their freshwater biodiversity are perceptibly threatened. Since crayfish species are known to cover a wide spectrum of ecological functions they are considered as keystone species and ecosystem engineers. Therefore, their decline may substantially impair local biodiversity and ecosystem services. In this manuscript we present a brief overview of the status of the native freshwater crayfish and their habitats in SEE. Different forms of physical habitat degradation as well as invasive alien crayfish species and their pathogens (e. g. , Aphanomyces astaci) are simultaneously threatening endangered populations all over SEE. Even though all native crayfish species are listed in the so far none of the 33 LIFE rehabilitation projects performed in SEE, has crayfish as target species in their agenda. Furthermore, SEE countries rarely designated Natura 2000 sites for native crayfish. We propose future studies to assess the distribution and functional role of crayfish species in SEE, as well as to develop habitat suitability models for these species during future conservation projects. Key words: Astacidae Balkans Natura 2000 river restoration © M. Danilović et al. , Published by EDP Sciences 2022 This is an 4. 0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material.

Output: corroborate


Input: Claim: AI can replace doctors entirely for all diagnostic and treatment decisions. [SEP] Text: It may not be long until healthcare includes integrated AI forms where a robot greets you in your native language for your annual check-up using Processing, takes your vital signs, and sends a recommendation to the doctor on which patient to prioritise and what investigations need to be ordered using algorithms designed to analyse collected vital signs. What AI can’t do is replace the natural ‘gut feel’ of a healthcare professional. And this won’t change in 2024. The clinical reasoning and thinking process that healthcare providers engage is so complex, and the sources of information that the human brain considers in patient care are too numerous to capture with current algorithms. The implicit knowledge an expert relies on for effective clinical care is so deeply embedded in human automation, that methods to get at these data points often fail. On top of this, AI-accessible data and the AI algorithms themselves can have flaws. Machine learning can be overly sensitive, leading to over-diagnoses in some patients. Processing AIs can act as healthcare trojan horses, where the technology is so convincing in its communication approaches that it tricks the user into thinking it is knowledgeable in the same way a human is. There are also privacy concerns with such AI applications. AI typically relies on data input to continue learning — and the clarity about what happens to confidential patient information when input into AI remains an open question for many platforms. There are also challenges that the healthcare AI field is tackling related to bias and responsibility, and questions about what we consider ‘mundane’ and ‘repetitive’ tasks which AI can truly take off humans. In reality (ironically), all existing AI is devoid of the necessary context within which healthcare occurs. It misses the complexity, the empathy, and important data points that human intelligence has access to, and can therefore only replicate specific human tasks. Our healthcare future: Humans leading, AI supporting A better description of the role of AI in healthcare in the future might be: “AI won’t replace the doctors, but those doctors will be replaced who don’t use Artificial Intelligence,” as Reddy, director at India’s Apollo, has put it. Healthcare AI is increasingly taking on roles of “clinical decision-making support”, meaning the healthcare provider is in charge and human intelligence is prioritised, while AI augments this.

Output: contrast


Input: Claim: Certain researchers argue that the properties of proteins can predict their functions accurately. [SEP] Text: ), or proposals for metrics better than RMSD to score the soundness of pockets generated by AF for docking. 1. Díaz-Rovira, A. M. , Martín, H. , Beuming, T. , Díaz, L. , Guallar, V. , & Ray, S. S. (2023). for Virtual Screening? Application of to AlphaFold2 Predicted Structures. Journal of and Modeling, 63(6), 1668-1674. 2. Heo, L. , & Feig, M. (2022). Multi-state modeling of G-protein coupled receptors at experimental accuracy. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics, 90(11), 1873-1885. 3. Beuming, T. , & Sherman, W. (2012). Current assessment of docking into GPCR crystal structures and homology models: Successes, challenges, and guidelines. Journal of and Modeling, 52(12), 3263-3277. 4. Scardino, V. , Di Filippo, J. I. , & Cavasotto, C. (2022). How good are AlphaFold models for docking-based virtual screening? [Preprint]. Chemistry. Author response We thank the reviewers and editor for their careful evaluation of our manuscript, and we appreciate their favorable assessment of our work. Below, we clarify a few points concerning the relationship between our study and previous studies evaluating ligand docking to protein models. As reviewer 2 correctly notes, several previous assessments of AF2 models have simply excluded templates above a sequence identity cutoff when using AF2 to predict structures. Such AF2 predictions are still informed by all structures in the PDB before April 30, 2018, because these structures were used to train AF2—that is, to determine the tens of millions of parameters (“weights”) in the AF2 neural network. Machine learning methods nearly always perform better when evaluated on the data used to train them than when evaluated on other data. For this reason, we consider AF2 models only for proteins whose structures were not used to train AF2—that is, for proteins whose structures were not available in the PDB before April 30, 2018.

Output: pass


Input: Claim: Certain animal species are keystone species, influencing entire ecosystems. # factual [SEP] Text: 1 most parts of the world, human activities have altered the landscape and disrupted fluvial processes to the extent that fluvial and riparian ecosystems are among the world’s most threatened (Tockner and Stanford, 2002; Helfield et al. , 2012). These disturbed river dynamics have massive negative consequences for riverine communities (Palmer et al. , 2010), especially aquatic keystone species and their ecosystem services (Malmqvist and Rundle, 2002; Richter et al. , 2003). In order to regain ecological integrity of riverine systems and mitigate the threats of biodiversity loss, national governments under the have implemented diverse laws and directives. The most important are the Directive (WFD) 2000/60/EC (EC, 2000), the 2007/60/EC (EC, 2007) and the Conservation-directive of and of and Flora, also known as 92/43/EEC (EC, 1992; European Union, 2020). Considering conservation issues in the European Union, a network of nature protection areas called Natura 2000 was established. In spite of the “umbrella effect” of the EU Natura 2000 protected areas network, 60% of freshwater habitats are failing to have a good ecological status (EEA, 2018) while 46% are still threatened (critically endangered, endangered, or vulnerable), and therefore far from having a favourable conservation status (Grzybowski and Glińska-Lewczuk, 2019). Here, we aimed to highlight the main threats to fluvial ecosystems in the SEE region through presenting an overall summary of the status of freshwater crayfish in the region. In order to do so, we have included existing studies originating from different countries in SEE. Finally, we suggest measures that can be additionally applied for successful conservation programs and emphasize obstacles that should be overcome. 2 Study area & Sources of information In this study we put a focus on SEE countries bordering the basin and Adriatic drainages according to the of the World (FEOW) map (FEOW, 2008). The main area of SEE includes the Mediterranean, Alpine, Continental and Pannonian biogeographical regions (Eionet, 2021). Literature included relevant publications, not restricted to any journals, and was searched by using the ISI Web of Science. For the 1. Cited literature of every relevant paper was also consulted.

Output: corroborate


Input: Claim: AI can replace doctors entirely for all diagnostic and treatment decisions. [SEP] Text: Under this model, AI could be programmed to alert the healthcare provider on all the variables not considered in an algorithm, to help the healthcare provider explore to what extent the AI recommendations can be valuable in a specific context or with a specific patient. For instance, if an AI is recommending antidepressants for a patient who is also pregnant, it would alert the doctor that such medications aren’t yet tested in this population — allowing the doctor to consider other data points in deciding the next best step. To support this model — in which humans lead, but AI support — the AI-integrated future shouldn’t just focus on improving AI. An AI-augmented healthcare system must include healthcare worker training and support in both AI literacy and human intelligence literacy. Education can also focus on helping healthcare providers recognise when to question patterns; how to challenge predictions; and the value of trusting intuition — essentially building capacity to tolerate uncertainty. This future-protecting healthcare education would help reduce the risk of “automation bias,” whereby humans allow the AI to work autonomously and the algorithm is trusted, even in the face of clear evidence that it’s wrong. AI has given us a valuable gift: the opportunity to explore what aspects of human intelligence are critical in healthcare, and which tasks can be enhanced with technology. After all, both human brains and AI are wired for prediction, but humans have the power to interrogate, question and evaluate these predictions while AI has computing power beyond a human brain. Both are needed to manage the complexities of patient care. Michelle D. is the Director of the Centre for Education and of the Centre for Scholarship in at in Australia. She is an award-winning educator, having received the ‘Teaching Excellence’ award amongst others, and is the author of the “Effect: How to Survive and Thrive through the Unexpected“. Originally published under by 360info™. Enjoy this 2024. Here’s why. Focus on 2024 It’s a wonderful year for a Moon dance Hydrogen can revolutionise clean energy, transport, decarbonise industrial processes … and cook your dinner. Focus on 2024 Hydrogen makes itself at home The UK and US have both approved a gene editing therapy to overcome the genetic mutation that causes sickle cell disease, but the treatment is expensive.

Output: contrast


Input: Claim: Certain researchers argue that the properties of proteins can predict their functions accurately. [SEP] Text: Figures AbstractThere is vigorous debate about the reproducibility of research findings in cancer biology. Whether scientists can accurately assess which experiments will reproduce original findings is important to determining the pace at which science self-corrects. We collected forecasts from basic and preclinical cancer researchers on the first 6 replication studies conducted by the Reproducibility Project: (RP:CB) to assess the accuracy of expert judgments on specific replication outcomes. On average, researchers forecasted a 75% probability of replicating the statistical significance and a 50% probability of replicating the effect size, yet none of these studies successfully replicated on either criterion (for the 5 studies with results reported). Accuracy was related to expertise: experts with higher h-indices were more accurate, whereas experts with more topic-specific expertise were less accurate. Our findings suggest that experts, especially those with specialized knowledge, were overconfident about the RP:CB replicating individual experiments within published reports; researcher optimism likely reflects a combination of overestimating the validity of original studies and underestimating the difficulties of repeating their methodologies. Author summary Science is supposed to be self-correcting. However, the efficiency with which science self-corrects depends in part on how well scientists can anticipate whether particular findings will hold up over time. We examined whether expert researchers could accurately forecast whether mouse experiments in 6 prominent preclinical cancer studies conducted by the Reproducibility Project: would reproduce original effects. Experts generally overestimated the likelihood that replication studies would reproduce the effects observed in original studies. Experts with greater publication impact (as measured by h-index) provided more accurate forecasts, but experts did not consistently perform better than trainees, and topic-specific expertise did not improve forecast skill. Our findings suggest that experts tend to overestimate the reproducibility of original studies and/or they underappreciate the difficulty of independently repeating laboratory experiments from original protocols. Citation: (2017) Can cancer researchers accurately judge whether preclinical reports will reproduce? PLoS Biol 15(6): e2002212. Editor: Lisa Bero, University of Sydney, AustraliaReceived: February 12, 2017; Accepted: May 18, 2017; Published: June 29, 2017Copyright: © 2017 Benjamin et al. This is an open access 193. html (grant number EOG 201303). Received by JK. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Output: pass


Input: Claim: Certain animal species are keystone species, influencing entire ecosystems. # factual [SEP] Text: 10. Protected SEE areas (without Romania) with high category (National parks, World heritage, Biosphere reserves, Ramsar sites), highlighted in green, were taken from the Eco-masterplan for (Riverwatch and EuroNatur 2018) provided by ( 4 Freshwater crayfish - diversity and threats European freshwater crayfish play a significant role for freshwater ecosystems. Considered as keystone species (Nystrom et al. , 1999; Dorn and Wojdak, 2004; Kouba et al. , 2014), crayfish provide top-down and bottom-up control through their omnivorous diet. From grazing macrophytes to active predation on macroinvertebrates and even small vertebrates, crayfish are known to control freshwater community composition (Usio, 2000; Füreder et al. , 2006; Mathers et al. , 2020). Through burrowing activities for food search and dwelling for shelter they also contribute to sedimentation processes in the benthic zone and are therefore considered as ecosystem engineers (Creed Jr. , 1994; Statzner et al. , 2000; Weinländer and Füreder, 2016). Aside from being active predators, they also form an important part of food webs as prey species (Reynolds et al. , 2013). Since crayfish cover a specific ecological niche, their decline may thus substantially impair local biodiversity and ecosystem services. European freshwaters are inhabited by indigenous crayfish species (ICS) belonging to the genera Pontastacus, Astacus and Austropotamobius (Souty-Grosset et al. , 2006; Crandall and De Grave, 2017). Due to their historical usage as a food source and frequent translocation by humans, distribution patterns of some species have changed throughout history (Maguire et al. , 2018). The ICS appearing in SEE freshwaters are as follows: 1 Astacus astacus (Linnaeus, 1758) (Noble crayfish) is mainly distributed in the tributaries of the and other water bodies belonging to the basin (Pârvulescu and Zaharia, 2013). There are also few recorded populations in the drainage, e. g. Croatia and Albania, where they were probably introduced (Maguire and Gottstein, 2004, Mrugała et al.

Output: corroborate


Input: Claim: AI can replace doctors entirely for all diagnostic and treatment decisions. [SEP] Text: Quantitative VD, however, has a number of limitations in the high surgical risk and TAVI population. The assessment requires additional intraprocedural time to determine the OPA, a specific injection protocol that necessarily increases the contrast burden in each case, and fails to discriminate transvalvular regurgitation from PVR – important in determining the appropriate intraprocedural treatment following TAVI (i. e. , post-dilatation or valve-in-valve). Intraprocedural haemodynamics have also been used13,14 but similarly suffer from the dependence on heart rate, an inability to distinguish central from paravalvular regurgitation and, in addition, significant overlap of mild and moderate PVR grades, the latter grade being associated with an increase in mortality post TAVI15. Echocardiography thus remains the preferred method for assessing PVR, since this imaging modality can identify the location (including central versus paravalvular), number and size of the PVR jets, and provide a multi-parametric assessment in a continuous, physiologic manner. Although a 5-grade scheme has been proposed for research protocols16, this scheme can be reduced to the typical 3-grade scale advocated by the guidelines (Table 1). Whereas grading of surgical or transcatheter AR is similarly multi-window and multi-parametric, grading of PVR following TAVI has important caveats9: 1. Circumferential extent should be assessed as the sum of the individual small jets and not the arc that includes non-regurgitant spaces due to the stent frame or calcific leaflets. To assess the jet number and regurgitant orifice location and size accurately, meticulous scanning is required to identify the origin of the jets and confirm their path into the LVOT. 2. Given the frequent presence of ventricular and aortic compliance abnormalities in this patient population, mitral E:A ratio, pressure half-time and holodiastolic reversal of flow in the descending aorta should be used with caution in isolation but may have utility when comparing a baseline to a post-TAVI flow pattern. 3. Jet length or jet area should not be used to assess the severity of AR following TAVI since these jets are frequently eccentrically directed, constrained by the LVOT, or entrained within the LVOT, leading to rapid jet broadening. 4.

Output: contrast


Input: Claim: Certain researchers argue that the properties of proteins can predict their functions accurately. [SEP] Text: Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. Abbreviations: FDA, Food and Drug Administration; RP:CB, Reproducibility Project: IntroductionApproximately 90% of new drugs entered into clinical development on promising preclinical findings fail to yield sufficient efficacy and safety to receive a Food and (FDA) license [1]. Such high rates of discordance between preclinical reports and clinical effects have prompted mounting scrutiny of the design, reporting, and reproducibility of preclinical research. Being unable to reproduce preclinical findings can impede medical progress and misallocate intellectual capital. For example, laboratories attempting to reproduce original findings might squander limited research resources because they are not attuned to subtle techniques needed to reproduce an original finding. Of even greater concern is the prospect of launching clinical investigations on the backs of invalid preclinical reports. Scientists’ judgments about an experiment’s reproducibility influence how they go about designing similar studies, as well as which findings are utilized for the design of subsequent studies. Accurate judgment about reproducibility therefore affects how efficiently science self-corrects. There is widespread debate about the scope of the reproducibility problem in many scientific fields, including biomedical research. Most scientists (52%) think there is a “significant” reproducibility crisis, whereas the remainder think there is, at worst, a “slight” crisis [2]. Some direct efforts at reproducing preclinical and basic science findings have suggested that many original findings may be spurious. For example, researchers at Amgen were unable to reproduce 89% of cancer preclinical studies provided to them by academic scientists; similar challenges were reported by Bayer scientists [3]. However, community-wide beliefs are somewhat measured, since 31% of researchers believe a result still might be true even in light of a failed replication attempt [2]. Indeed, many commentators have questioned the efforts and expertise of those conducting replication studies [4,5]. Uncertainty about the extent, causes, and impact of the “reproducibility crisis” has led to calls for more systematic assessments of the problem [6]. Project: (RP:CB) is currently conducting 29 direct replication studies to evaluate the replication rate in cancer biology [7]. By collecting subjective probability forecasts on outcomes that can be unambiguously dichotomized, one can score the accuracy of individuals’ strength of belief using well-established methods from the decision sciences [8].

Output: pass


Input: Claim: Certain animal species are keystone species, influencing entire ecosystems. # factual [SEP] Text: The red swamp crayfish Procambarus clarkii in Europe: Impacts on aquatic ecosystems and human well-being. Limnologica 58: 78–93. [1973. Crayfish in Austria, history and actual situation. 1: 10–14. [2000. Crayfish as geomorphic agents and ecosystem engineers: Biological behavior affects sand and gravel erosion in experimental streams. 45: 1030–1040. [CrossRef] [2002. Riverine flood plains: Present state and future trends. 29: 308–330. [CrossRef] [2014. Distribution and current status of stone crayfish populations Austropotamobius torrentium (Decapoda: Astacidae) in Natura 2000 protected areas in Bulgaria. Bulg 66: 181–202. [2020. Faxonius limosus (Rafinesque, 1817) (Decapoda: Cambaridae), a new invasive alien species of European union concern in Bulgaria. Bulg 72: 113–121. [2019. Impact of floods on increased heavy metal content in the inundation area of the Drava river in the Varaždin county. Hrvatske vode 5: 305–316. [2013. Freshwater crayfish (Decapoda: Astacidae) distribution and conservation in Bulgaria. 19: 243–248. [2005. Phylogenetic and phylogeographic relationships in the crayfish genus Austropotamobius inferred from mitochondrial COI gene sequences. Evol 34: 212–226. [2011. Freshwater crayfish in Bosnia and Herzegovina: the first report on their distribution. Knowl. Manag. Aquat. Ecosyst. 401: 26. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [2013. A global meta-analysis of the ecological impacts of nonnative crayfish. 32: 1367–1382. [2012. Mura-Drava-. [2000. Effects of crayfish on leaf processing and invertebrate colonisation of leaves in a headwater stream: decoupling of a trophic cascade. Oecologia 124: 608–614. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [1999. Stable isotope evidence for food web consequences of species invasions in lakes. Nature 401: 464–467.

Output: corroborate


Input: Claim: All healthcare facilities worldwide are equipped to use AI systems effectively. [SEP] Text: Policy: ASTM International prohibits the entry of ASTM standards and related ASTM intellectual property (“”) into any form of (AI) tools, such as ChatGPT. Additionally, creating ----derivatives of using AI is also prohibited without express written permission from ASTM’s President. In the case of such use, ASTM will suspend a licensee’s access to and further legal action will be considered. Meetings & | Meetings & & & Standards and Papers & STPs Manuals, Monographs, & of ® (SOP) (TMA) and & & & & and ASTM What is and to to News and & -11. 03 Committee F23 $ 83. 00 In stock AbstractThis specification establishes the requirements for the performance, documentation, and labeling of surgical gowns used in the healthcare facilities. It does not however cover all the requirements that a healthcare facility deems necessary to select a product, nor does it address criteria for evaluating experimental products. Barrier testing shall be conducted to determine the impact penetration, hydrostatic resistance, and viral penetration resistance performance of the critical zone(s) of the surgical gown. The physical properties of the critical zone(s) of the surgical gown shall also be tested and shall conform to the following requirements: tensile strength, tear resistance, seam strength, lint generation, evaporative resistance, and water vapor transmission rate. General safety requirements shall be set based on biocompatibility, sterility assurance, flame spread, and natural rubber latex specifications. Scope1. 1 This specification establishes requirements for the performance, documentation, and labeling of surgical gowns used in the healthcare facilities. Four levels of barrier properties for surgical gowns are specified in 70:2003 and are included in this specification for reference purposes. Note 1Some properties require minimum performance and others are for documentation only. Note 270:2003 evaluates the barrier properties of surgical gown fabrics using water only in Levels 1, 2, and 3. Since surgical gowns are exposed to blood and other fluids with different surface tensions, the performance of additional testing to identify the barrier levels to simulated biological fluids is required for a Level 4 gown. 1. 2 This specification does not cover all the requirements that a healthcare facility deems necessary to select a product, nor does it address criteria for evaluating experimental products. 1.

Output: contrast


Input: Claim: Certain researchers argue that the properties of proteins can predict their functions accurately. [SEP] Text: For example, in a study examining economists’ predictive judgments about replication studies, forecasts significantly correlated with replication results and beat a matched prediction market about the same replication studies [9]. In contrast, psychologists’ forecasts did not significantly correlate with replication results, and their forecasts were beaten by a similar, matched prediction market [10]. Here, we report forecasts and their accuracy for the first 6 mouse-model replication studies conducted by the RP:CB. We set out primarily to determine the extent to which expert cancer researchers can accurately predict the probability of replicating significance levels and effect sizes from specific original studies in the RP:CB. We close by discussing our findings in light of the many complexities of conducting and interpreting replication studies, including the particular experiments used in our surveys. demographics We recruited a sample of 196 participants, including 138 experts and 58 novices, to perform forecasts for our study (Table 1 summarizes the sample demographics). Experts were predominantly male, whereas there were slightly more female than male novices. Our expert sample showed a somewhat lower mean h-index compared with nonresponders (25. 6 versus 32. 4)—based on an equally sized random sample of nonresponders. Download: PPTPowerPoint slidePNGlarger imageTIFForiginal imageTable 1. Sample demographics by rank of participants. average expert had published 89. 5 (SD = 109. 0) papers and been cited 4,546. 1 (SD = 7,932. 4) times. A third of the sample (27% of experts and 44% of novices) had not heard of the RP:CB, while 9% (10% of experts and 7% of novices) were actively awaiting results. The expert sample believed they had reasonable expertise pertaining to the studies in our survey. The mean expertise rating was 4. 2 (SD = 1. 9) on a 7-point scale (with 1 representing minimal expertise and 7 representing maximal expertise). A plurality of expert participants (45%) rated their expertise above the scale’s midpoint, and 33% below the midpoint. The mean expertise rating for the novices was 2. 9 (SD = 1. 5), with only 15% of novice expertise ratings above the midpoint and 65% below. Both the experts and novices rated high confidence in their forecasts, 77% versus 76% respectively.

Output: pass


Input: Claim: Certain animal species are keystone species, influencing entire ecosystems. # factual [SEP] Text: [CrossRef] [2021. Trophic niches of three sympatric invasive crayfish of EU concern. Hydrobiologia 5: 727–737. [CrossRef] [2009. The continuing spread of Pacifastacus leniusculus in Carinthia (Austria). Knowl. Manag. Aquat. Ecosyst. 394–395: 17. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [2010. The ecology and habitat requirements of Austropotamobius torrentium in small forest streams in Carinthia (Austria). 17: 221–226. [2016. Native and alien crayfish species: Do their trophic roles differ? 35: 1340–1353. [CrossRef] [2014. Landscape analyses offer a promising tool for managing native and alien crayfish species. 20: 27–40. [CrossRef] [2020. Hungary: A European hotspot of non-native crayfish biodiversity. Knowl. Manag. Aquat. Ecosyst. 421: 43. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [2018. Species in Balkan Rivers: their distributions and threats from hydropower development. 162 p. [2021. World’s first 5-country biosphere reserve will benefit people and nature in the ‘Amazon of. [2013. Assessment of the River and Potential in the “Mura-Drava-Danube”, WWF, Vienna. [2020. The spiny-cheek crayfish Faxonius limosus (Rafinesque, 1817) (Decapoda: Cambaridae) invades new areas in Serbian inland waters. Bulg 72: 623–627. [2022. Overlooked keystone species in conservation plans of fluvial ecosystems in Southeast Europe: a review of native freshwater crayfish species. Knowl. Manag. Aquat. Ecosyst. , 423, 21. Fig. 1Freshwaters in SEE with watershed of the basin marked with red line, produced in QGIS v. 3. 16. 10.

Output: corroborate