Backup Comparison: 21 Feb 2026 Snapshot vs Current Production¶
Note: This is a temporary planning document that will be deleted when the investigation is complete.
Project: little DOMS (ac35058c-4767-4f9a-9ddc-5ba9d484c289)
Date: 2026-03-07
Backup source: Atlas weekly snapshot 21 Feb 2026, restored to local container (mcp__mongodb-syrf-local)
Production: Live syrftest database on prod Atlas cluster (mcp__mongodb-syrf-prod)
Method¶
Queried both databases for Althea's (CSUUID F5XWaUIex06j3KycXnpSUA==) annotations on the 6 affected studies, filtering to the 17 shared RoB question IDs. Compared answer values for each study × question combination.
The backup predates both re-submission events (25 Feb, 5 Mar 2026) and captures the state immediately after Althea completed Stage 2 (18–19 Feb).
Note on StageId: The
StageIdfield on annotations records which stage the user was in when the annotation was created (provenance). Annotations do not belong to stages — sessions do.
High-Level Result¶
| Metric | Count |
|---|---|
| Stage 2 provenance annotations in backup | 110 |
| Stage 2 provenance annotations in current prod | 0 |
| RoB judgments compared | ~78 |
| RoB judgments changed | 8 |
| RoB annotations entirely lost (not re-created) | 3 |
| RoB judgments matching | ~67 |
RoB Question ID Reference¶
Study-level items (one per study)¶
| Short Name | QuestionId (base64) | RoB Item |
|---|---|---|
| Item 1 | x0qAlFTE30SKuwcTf6VKbg== |
Selection bias: Sequence generation |
| Item 2 | s3lHskqD0U+E6epC/TLzyQ== |
Selection bias: Baseline characteristics (shared variant) |
| Item 3 | j0xK+34eDEuD9XcktXvDvQ== |
Selection bias: Allocation concealment |
| Item 4 | iTiQBo9jrkSiRU2S/Zr5qg== |
Performance bias: Random housing |
| Item 5 | J+Lhoi/piEW1fuCJDxGhgQ== |
Performance bias: Blinding |
| Item 9 | T37in9k7mUW+qrBDBLyPug== |
Reporting bias: Selective outcome reporting |
| Item 10 | xZm1vfctOkm7IrH+Clmn+w== |
Other sources of bias |
Per-outcome items (one per outcome assessed)¶
Two sets of Items 6/⅞ exist — one "study-level" set and one "per-outcome" set with different QuestionIds:
| Short Name | QuestionId (base64) | RoB Item |
|---|---|---|
| Item 6-SL | 8KWtDbzlHEWjRiP/dYOxdA== |
Detection bias: Random outcome assessment (study-level) |
| Item 7-SL | VsK19fbUIUOdMF2G0XXStg== |
Detection bias: Blinding (study-level) |
| Item 8-SL | gYefGdoJIkGhL85yzOpEMw== |
Attrition bias: Incomplete outcome data (study-level) |
| Item 6-PO | n3GUowpTSkmZVULHrc5/qw== |
Detection bias: Random outcome assessment (per-outcome) |
| Item 7-PO | HADII2nna0CbQ1yyHpxJTA== |
Detection bias: Blinding (per-outcome) |
| Item 8-PO | z+/34B1xEUyppzwZQbFQog== |
Attrition bias: Incomplete outcome data (per-outcome) |
Other shared annotations¶
| Short Name | QuestionId (base64) | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Outcome name | 7+yzsWHUSUyCOcyt8fr55Q== |
"What is the name of the neurobehavioral outcome?" |
| Outcome label | oIb48WLhUkq4N5PoK+74AQ== |
Outcome assessment procedure label |
| Outcome label 2 | DHLi2wguR0+80D/krouMfw== |
Outcome label (full format) |
| Reconciliation | LJJdVgjvsEuYFC6ooFHMNA== |
"Is this study reconciled" (BoolAnnotation, always false) |
Per-Study Comparison¶
1. Contralesional angiotensin (20 Stage 2 annotations in backup)¶
Result: ALL MATCH
| RoB Item | Backup | Current | Match? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Item 1 | Unclear | Unclear | Yes |
| Item 2 | Low | Low | Yes |
| Item 3 | Unclear | Unclear | Yes |
| Item 4 | Unclear | Unclear | Yes |
| Item 5 | Unclear | Unclear | Yes |
| Item 9 | High | High | Yes |
| Item 10 | Low | Low | Yes |
| Item 6-PO (Rotarod) | Unclear | Unclear | Yes |
| Item 7-PO (Rotarod) | Unclear | Unclear | Yes |
| Item 8-PO (Rotarod) | Unclear | Unclear | Yes |
| Item 6-PO (Bederson) | Unclear | Unclear | Yes |
| Item 7-PO (Bederson) | Unclear | Unclear | Yes |
| Item 8-PO (Bederson) | Unclear | Unclear | Yes |
Notes: No SL variants (8KWt/VsK1/gYef) exist in either backup or prod for this study. Item 9 is notably "High" (with Notes referencing "data not shown" quote) — correctly preserved.
2. NLRP3 Inflammasome (13 Stage 2 annotations in backup)¶
Result: 1 CHANGED
| RoB Item | Backup | Current | Match? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Item 1 | Unclear | Unclear | Yes |
| Item 2 | Low | Low | Yes |
| Item 3 | Unclear | Unclear | Yes |
| Item 4 | Unclear | Unclear | Yes |
| Item 5 | Unclear | Unclear | Yes |
| Item 9 | Unclear | Unclear | Yes |
| Item 10 | Low | Low | Yes |
| Item 6-SL | Unclear | Unclear | Yes |
| Item 7-SL | Unclear | Unclear | Yes |
| Item 8-SL | Low | High | NO |
Notes: Item 8-SL flipped from Low to High. Backup notes: "Was the number/percentage AND reason for dropout/mortality described PER GROUP? YES". Current notes likely say NO. Only 1 outcome (Infarct volume) so no PO items beyond SL.
3. Low-dose nifedipine (22 Stage 2 annotations in backup)¶
Result: ALL MATCH
| RoB Item | Backup | Current | Match? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Item 1 | Unclear | Unclear | Yes |
| Item 2 | Low | Low | Yes |
| Item 3 | Unclear | Unclear | Yes |
| Item 4 | Unclear | Unclear | Yes |
| Item 5 | Unclear | Unclear | Yes |
| Item 9 | Unclear | Unclear | Yes |
| Item 10 | Low | Low | Yes |
| Item 6-SL | Unclear | Unclear | Yes |
| Item 7-SL | Unclear | Unclear | Yes |
| Item 8-SL | Unclear | Unclear | Yes |
| Item 6-PO ×3 | Unclear | Unclear | Yes |
| Item 7-PO ×3 | Unclear | Unclear | Yes |
| Item 8-PO ×3 | Unclear | Unclear | Yes |
Notes: 3 outcomes (Infarct volume, Beam Test, Body Asymmetry Test). All Unclear across the board — fully consistent.
4. Huang-Lian-Jie-Du (17 Stage 2 annotations in backup)¶
Result: 1 CHANGED + 3 LOST
| RoB Item | Backup | Current | Match? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Item 1 | Unclear | Unclear | Yes |
| Item 2 | Low | Low | Yes |
| Item 3 | Unclear | Unclear | Yes |
| Item 4 | Unclear | Unclear | Yes |
| Item 5 | Unclear | Unclear | Yes |
| Item 9 | Unclear | Unclear | Yes |
| Item 10 | Low | Low | Yes |
| Item 6-SL | Unclear | MISSING | LOST |
| Item 7-SL | Unclear | MISSING | LOST |
| Item 8-SL | High | MISSING | LOST |
| Item 6-PO | Unclear | Unclear | Yes |
| Item 7-PO | Unclear | Unclear | Yes |
| Item 8-PO | Low | High | NO |
Notes: Item 8-PO flipped from Low→High. Backup notes: "Did the numbers of animals that started the experiment match the number of animals analyzed? YES". Current notes: same question but answer "NO". The SL variants (Items 6-SL, 7-SL, 8-SL) were not re-created during Stage 1 re-submission — entirely absent from current prod.
5. New alternative approaches (19 Stage 2 annotations in backup)¶
Result: 6 CHANGED (most affected study)
| RoB Item | Backup | Current | Match? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Item 1 | Unclear | Unclear | Yes |
| Item 2 | Low | Low | Yes |
| Item 3 | Unclear | Unclear | Yes |
| Item 4 | Unclear | Unclear | Yes |
| Item 5 | Unclear | Unclear | Yes |
| Item 9 | Unclear | Unclear | Yes |
| Item 10 | Low | Low | Yes |
| Item 6-SL | High | Unclear | NO |
| Item 7-SL | Low | Unclear | NO |
| Item 8-SL | Unclear | Unclear | Yes |
| Item 6-PO (Infarct) | High | Unclear | NO |
| Item 7-PO (Infarct) | Low | Unclear | NO |
| Item 8-PO (Infarct) | Unclear | Unclear | Yes |
| Item 6-PO (Neuro) | High | Unclear | NO |
| Item 7-PO (Neuro) | Low | Unclear | NO |
| Item 8-PO (Neuro) | Unclear | Unclear | Yes |
Notes: This is the most significant study. Althea originally made specific judgments: - Item 6 (random outcome assessment): High — "Was randomization described in the paper? NO" - Item 7 (blinding detection): Low — "Was the described method of blinding appropriate? YES"
These were specific, evidenced assessments. In her re-entry, all were flattened to "Unclear", representing genuine loss of analytical precision.
6. DPP-4 Linagliptin (19 Stage 2 annotations in backup)¶
Result: ALL MATCH
| RoB Item | Backup | Current | Match? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Item 1 | Unclear | Unclear | Yes |
| Item 2 | Low | Low | Yes |
| Item 3 | Unclear | Unclear | Yes |
| Item 4 | Unclear | Unclear | Yes |
| Item 5 | Unclear | Unclear | Yes |
| Item 9 | Unclear | Unclear | Yes |
| Item 10 | Low | Low | Yes |
| Item 6-SL | Unclear | Unclear | Yes |
| Item 7-SL | Unclear | Unclear | Yes |
| Item 8-SL | Unclear | Unclear | Yes |
| Item 6-PO ×2 | Unclear | Unclear | Yes |
| Item 7-PO ×2 | Unclear | Unclear | Yes |
| Item 8-PO ×2 | Unclear | Unclear | Yes |
Notes: 2 outcomes (Infarct volume, Adhesive Removal Test). All values match.
Summary¶
What changed¶
| # | Study | Items Changed | Direction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | New alt. approaches | Item 6-SL, 6-PO×2 | High → Unclear | Lost specific "no randomization" judgment |
| 2 | New alt. approaches | Item 7-SL, 7-PO×2 | Low → Unclear | Lost specific "blinding appropriate" judgment |
| 3 | NLRP3 | Item 8-SL | Low → High | Attrition rating flipped |
| 4 | Huang-Lian-Jie-Du | Item 8-PO | Low → High | Attrition rating flipped, notes contradict |
What was lost entirely¶
| Study | Items | Original Values |
|---|---|---|
| Huang-Lian-Jie-Du | Items 6-SL, 7-SL, 8-SL | Unclear, Unclear, High |
Pattern¶
- Items 1–5, 9, 10 (study-level): 100% match across all 6 studies — Althea reliably recalled these
- Items 6, 7, 8 (per-outcome/SL): where ALL changes and losses occurred — exactly the outcome-level items Althea reported as "disappeared" in issue #2337
- Changes go in one direction: specific judgments (High/Low) → Unclear. This is consistent with a reviewer who can no longer see the original evidence and defaults to "Unclear"
- Two attrition items flipped Low→High, with notes showing the underlying factual assessment reversed ("YES"→"NO")
Conclusion¶
The backup must be used for data recovery. Althea's re-entered values do not match her original Stage 2 work: - 8 RoB judgments have different answers - 3 annotations are entirely missing - The changes affect analytical precision — specific evidence-based judgments were replaced with "Unclear"
The 21 Feb Atlas backup contains the original Stage 2 annotations with correct provenance and Althea's original RoB assessments. Recovery procedure is documented in the main investigation doc (little-doms-investigation.md).