{"publication_id":"02840007-a0ce-4dd5-86ff-bcf9cc81d432","screening":{"identified":12,"screened":12,"excluded":0,"included":12,"included_or_retained":12,"flow":["identified","screened","excluded_with_reasons","included"],"wording":"12 candidate receipts retained after source retrieval, deduplication, and topic filtering. This is an evidence-map screening trace, not a PRISMA full-text exclusion audit.","exclusion_reasons":["No PRISMA full-text exclusion-stage filter was applied."]},"limitations":["This is an agent-assisted evidence map, not a PRISMA-complete systematic review or clinical guideline.","It is not PROSPERO-registered and should not be read as medical advice.","Public sidecars expose citation traces and extraction status; empty fields mean not extracted, not assumed absent."],"contradictions":["Evidence scope: A subset of the retained sources is indirect, review-level, adjacent, or mechanistic and are used only to bound interpretation. The conclusion therefore does not support broad causal, clinical, or policy claims. This paper synthesizes evidence on aspirin cardiovascular effects across the retained source corpus and high-confidence extracted claim set [bundle:7]. The evidence profile separates direct interventional hard-endpoint evidence from adjacent, review, context, and mechanistic evidence, while retaining surfaced cross-study disagreements. Positive study-level signals are not the dominant direction in any outcome class; null signals are not the dominant direction in any outcome class; negative signals are not the dominant direction in any outcome class; mixed or heterogeneous signals are summarized in the cardiometabolic, contextual adjacent evidence, immune and inflammation, and longevity outcome classes. The paper therefore reports a source-directness and outcome-class map rather than a pooled effect. The conclusion is that aspirin cardiovascular effects remains a bounded evidence case: the retained direct, adjacent, and context evidence profile defines the scope for targeted testing, while mixed and null findings limit any unqualified broad clinical claim [bundle:9].","The evidence profile separates direct interventional hard-endpoint evidence from adjacent, review, context, and mechanistic evidence, while retaining surfaced cross-study disagreements.","Positive study-level signals are not the dominant direction in any outcome class; null signals are not the dominant direction in any outcome class; negative signals are not the dominant direction in any outcome class; mixed or heterogeneous signals are summarized in the cardiometabolic, contextual adjacent evidence, immune and inflammation, and longevity outcome classes. The paper therefore reports a source-directness and outcome-class map rather than a pooled effect.","The conclusion is that aspirin cardiovascular effects remains a bounded evidence case: the retained direct, adjacent, and context evidence profile defines the scope for targeted testing, while mixed and null findings limit any unqualified broad clinical claim [bundle:9].","The corpus contains 8 direct clinical sources, 4 adjacent, review, or context sources, and no sources classified primarily as mechanistic or model-system evidence. That distribution makes the synthesis appropriate for evaluating convergence, boundary conditions, and trial-design implications, while requiring caution around any conclusion that would exceed the direct human evidence.","Null findings have a specific role in this evidence model. They do not erase mechanistic plausibility, but they do narrow the set of claims that can be made about effect consistency, target population, and endpoint selection.","The evidence base also distinguishes breadth from certainty. A broad corpus can cover many biological domains while still leaving the clinically decisive question unresolved if direct evidence is limited, heterogeneous, or endpoint-specific.","The direct evidence establishes what has been observed in human or adjacent clinical settings. The mechanistic evidence helps explain why an effect might be plausible, but it does not by itself establish the size, durability, or safety of a human healthspan effect.","The study-level structure also prevents selective emphasis. Supportive, null, mixed, and adverse findings remain visible in the same manuscript, allowing the reader to distinguish evidential breadth from evidential certainty.","Findings Map accounting note: each outcome-class n, direction count, directness count, and source roster is computed from the same source-level rows listed in the detailed table. Receipt-level direction is not a statement that the source abstracts lack directional statistics; it is the conservative coded polarity used for synthesis accounting. Outcome-class roster: Cardiometabolic n=8 (direction: mixed=1; negative=1; null=1; positive=1; unclear=4; directness: direct=5; review=3; sources: Berger 2006 [bundle:12]; Fransquet 2026 [bundle:11]; Holder 2026 [bundle:3]; Moawad 2026 [bundle:4]; Mosher 2025 [bundle:5]; Nouni-Garcia 2025 [bundle:9]; Valeriani 2026 [bundle:10]; Wolfe 2025 [bundle:7]); Contextual Adjacent Evidence n=2 (direction: unclear=2; directness: direct=1; indirect=1; sources: Arnreiter 2025 [bundle:8]; Yu 2024 [bundle:6]); Immune and Inflammation n=1 (direction: unclear=1; directness: direct=1; sources: Pistrosch 2021 [bundle:2]); Longevity n=1 (direction: unclear=1; directness: direct=1; sources: Ibrahim 2026 [bundle:1])."]}