# Scientific review and corrections

## Review status

No independent reviewer reproduction, review statement or endorsement is recorded.
The current evidence consists of analyses and repeats performed by the implementer.
See the companion article for the publication date and invitation to review.
Preparing this register does not itself establish that anyone has been contacted.

## Scope of review

Readers can critique the public methods, cohort selection, comparison denominators,
aggregate results and limitations. Recalculation from aggregate tables and rerunning
the underlying pipeline are different activities. Inspection or execution of the
private scientific implementation requires a separately established access arrangement.
No access arrangement or independent rerun is implied by this register.

A useful review identifies the supplement version, relevant method or result,
the concern, supporting evidence and any computation actually performed. Reviewers
may focus on one component. Article readability feedback does not validate the pipeline.

## Feedback and corrections

No entries received.

For each permitted public entry, record:

- Review ID and date; reviewer role and relevant relationship, with permission.
- Exact supplement/article version and scope examined.
- Finding and supporting evidence, including methods and environments for reruns.
- Our response, changed claims/results and corrected artifact versions.
- Whether the reviewer verified the correction.

Classify computational review as not attempted, partial (name the steps), completed
within a stated scope, or discrepancy. Identify reused predictions/intermediates.
Preserve negative findings and unresolved disagreements. Publish attributed quotes
or videos only with permission and their actual reviewed scope. Private correspondence
is not part of this supplement. Invited blog review is distinct from journal peer review.