{"publication_id":"145fcccc-2360-4120-8674-34dd3e97ade7","screening":{"identified":55,"screened":55,"excluded":0,"included":55,"included_or_retained":55,"flow":["identified","screened","excluded_with_reasons","included"],"wording":"55 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":["We conducted an AI-assisted structured evidence synthesis across 55 curated reference papers indexed for Aspirin, extracting effect estimates, confidence intervals, and p-values into an audit-trailed evidence table while preserving the design and directness annotations supplied by the original sources.","The corpus contains no sources classified primarily as direct interventional hard-endpoint evidence, 55 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.","Contextual Adjacent Evidence: n=23; claims=984; mixed signal in 15/23 sources | directness: 14 indirect; 9 review; main limitation: no direct clinical anchor."]}