Counting Independent Evidence in Mechanistic Reviews

Abstract

Shared cohorts, overlapping reviews, source lineage create distinct evidence obligations in immune-state and tumor evidence synthesis. A bounded review of the literature is used to formulate, rather than claim to complete, an evaluation. The starting source uses a conceptual review proposing immunometabolic set points across immune and tissue compartments. Sources often reuse cohorts, measurements, and earlier interpretations. Counting publications can overstate the number of independent tests. Map datasets and overlapping samples before synthesis. Weight replication by independent data and design differences rather than by bibliography length. The proposed comparison concerns shared cohorts, overlapping reviews, source lineage; it would test whether the specific failure scenario is detected without erasing legitimate uncertainty. The original source's limits remain material: A unifying set point is a hypothesis, not an already validated clinical measurement or an established therapeutic protocol.