Alpha¹ by KaimenConfidential

Kaimen Rigor review

Effects of volenrelaxin in worsening heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a phase 2 randomized trial.

Borlaug BA, Testani JM, Petrie MC, Wang Z, Cunningham J, Adams KF Jr, Amir O, Bělohlávek J, Bocchi E, Freitas A Jr, Hominal M, Kadokami T, Merkely B, Miller CA, Nuñez J, Verma S, Yilmaz MB, Oru E, Sam F

DOI: 10.1038/s41591-025-03939-6
Record issued: 2026-08-15
Engine: 7.39.0
Exported: 2026-09-22

Prepared by Alpha1. This document is confidential: it is intended for the recipient it was shared with and must not be redistributed. The live record at alpha1science.com/verify/13068602-8792-4ef7-8065-a55cd341b6a8 is authoritative.

Kaimen Rigor review

Kaimen Rigor reviewed

2 / 5

Weak — serious problems found

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated

Started at 5★ — deductions

IntegrityIntegrity concern ×4−2★
ClaimsEfficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint−0.5★
ClaimsTreatment effect not shown to be clinically meaningful−0.5★

Model-reported confidence: highReviewer agreement: highEngine: 7.39.0Source: full text

Biggest issues

01Efficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint
highOverreachreviewer-assessedFull detail
The primary efficacy claim is based on change in left atrial (LA) reservoir strain, a surrogate imaging biomarker, without demonstration of target engagement at the tested dose or citation of validated evidence linking LA reservoir strain to hard clinical outcomes. The paper itself notes the trial was stopped early due to worsening congestion and no significant effect on hard outcomes.
“The primary outcome was the change in LA reservoir strain at 26 weeks... Compared to placebo, 25-mg volenrelaxin improved LA reservoir strain (+3.9%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.1–6.6, P = 0.006)... In conclusion, despite some evidence for improvement in…”
Find in source
02Treatment effect not shown to be clinically meaningful
highOverreachreviewer-assessedFull detail
The primary reported effect is a small absolute change in LA reservoir strain (+3.9%) compared to a baseline of ~18% (normal >39%), representing a modest relative improvement. The paper does not anchor this to a minimal clinically important difference or demonstrate meaningful clinical benefit, especially given the worsening congestion and lack of effect on hard outcomes.
“Compared to placebo, 25-mg volenrelaxin improved LA reservoir strain (+3.9%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.1–6.6, P = 0.006)... At baseline, participants had severely impaired LA reservoir strain (17.8%, normal > 39%)”
Find in source

Findings by category

101ArithmeticNumerical inconsistencies 202OverreachOverstated conclusions 103AuthenticityData authenticity concerns 04DisclosureNone found 05AvailabilityNone found 06Copyedit6 minor suggestions

This Kaimen Rigor review uses Kaimen Rigor reviewers trained on a curated corpus of high-fidelity and retracted papers, with expert supervision and curation. It can still make mistakes; verify each finding against the source before relying on it.

This is a well-conducted phase 2 randomized controlled trial with rigorous design, clear reporting of demographics, ethics approval, and data availability. Minor reporting gaps include lack of explicit statistical software identification, incomplete inclusion/exclusion criteria in the main text, and a few copyedit issues.

Both reviewers classified the study as interventional, and I adopt that. The evaluation covered all eight dimensions; species/strain, housing, and cell-line criteria were not applicable for this human trial. The statistics verification recomputed 14 tests consistently, but this does not confirm overall statistical correctness.

Numerical inconsistencies

1 finding · worst low

Values that contradict each other or are impossible for the stated sample: recomputed p-values and test statistics, GRIM/GRIMMER checks on summary numbers, percentages against their own counts, totals against their parts, and estimates against their own confidence intervals.

Internal contradictions in the reported numbersAssessed

Recomputed 14 tests: 14 consistent, 0 inconsistent; 5 recomputed directly from the reported test statistics, 9 via agent-written checks.

Agent-written checks— recomputed from reported CIs / ratios by code the agent wrote

CONSISTENTreported p = .070 · recomputed p = .069
Recomputed hazard ratio 2.64 (95% CI 0.93–7.56), reported p=0.070
“hazard ratio = 2.64, 95% CI: 0.93–7.56, P = 0.070”
Find in source
Taken as given: 0.93–7.56 is a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio of 2.64, not a range, an IQR, or a different interval level; the hazard ratio is a RATIO measure, so the interval is symmetric on the log scale; p=0.070 is the p for THIS estimate, not for another comparison in the same sentence
Method: back the two-tailed p out of the log-scale CI width and compare it against the printed p
How we recomputed it: pCI(2.64, 0.93, 7.56, 1)
CONSISTENTreported p = .056 · recomputed p = .063
Recomputed odds ratio 2.52 (95% CI 0.95–6.68), reported p=0.056
“odds ratio = 2.52, 95% CI: 0.95–6.68, P = 0.056”
Find in source
Taken as given: 0.95–6.68 is a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the odds ratio of 2.52, not a range, an IQR, or a different interval level; the odds ratio is a RATIO measure, so the interval is symmetric on the log scale; p=0.056 is the p for THIS estimate, not for another comparison in the same sentence
Method: back the two-tailed p out of the log-scale CI width and compare it against the printed p
How we recomputed it: pCI(2.52, 0.95, 6.68, 1)
CONSISTENTreported p = .308 · recomputed p = .301
Recomputed HR 1.40 (95% CI 0.74–2.65), reported p=0.308
“HR = 1.40, 95% CI: 0.74–2.65, P = 0.308”
Find in source
Taken as given: 0.74–2.65 is a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the HR of 1.40, not a range, an IQR, or a different interval level; the HR is a RATIO measure, so the interval is symmetric on the log scale; p=0.308 is the p for THIS estimate, not for another comparison in the same sentence
Method: back the two-tailed p out of the log-scale CI width and compare it against the printed p
How we recomputed it: pCI(1.4, 0.74, 2.65, 1)
CONSISTENTreported p = .142 · recomputed p = .146
Recomputed OR 1.60 (95% CI 0.85–3.02), reported p=0.142
“OR = 1.60 (95% CI: 0.85–3.02), P = 0.142”
Find in source
Taken as given: 0.85–3.02 is a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the OR of 1.60, not a range, an IQR, or a different interval level; the OR is a RATIO measure, so the interval is symmetric on the log scale; p=0.142 is the p for THIS estimate, not for another comparison in the same sentence
Method: back the two-tailed p out of the log-scale CI width and compare it against the printed p
How we recomputed it: pCI(1.6, 0.85, 3.02, 1)
CONSISTENTreported p = .056 · recomputed p = .063
Recomputed OR 2.52 (95% CI 0.95–6.68), reported p=0.056
“OR = 2.52, 95% CI: 0.95–6.68, P = 0.056”
Find in source
Taken as given: 0.95–6.68 is a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the OR of 2.52, not a range, an IQR, or a different interval level; the OR is a RATIO measure, so the interval is symmetric on the log scale; p=0.056 is the p for THIS estimate, not for another comparison in the same sentence
Method: back the two-tailed p out of the log-scale CI width and compare it against the printed p
How we recomputed it: pCI(2.52, 0.95, 6.68, 1)
CONSISTENTreported p = .006 · recomputed p = .005Reviewers 1, 2
Primary endpoint: change in LA reservoir strain at 26 weeks for 25-mg dose vs placebo
“Compared to placebo, 25-mg volenrelaxin improved LA reservoir strain (+3.9%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.1–6.6, P = 0.006)”
Find in source
Taken as given: The estimate is the difference in means (3.9%); The 95% CI is two-sided; The test is two-sided
Method: Recomputed p-value from the estimate and 95% CI using normal approximation.
How we recomputed it: pCI(3.9, 1.1, 6.6, 0)
CONSISTENTreported p = .005 · recomputed p = <.001Reviewers 1, 2
Secondary endpoint: change in NT-proBNP at 26 weeks for 25-mg dose vs placebo
“25-mg volenrelaxin ( n = 39) | −22.9 | +9.9 | +42.6 (11.3–82.7) | 0.005”
Find in source
Taken as given: The estimate is the relative difference in percentage change (42.6%); The 95% CI is two-sided; The test is two-sided
Method: Recomputed p-value from the estimate and 95% CI using log-normal approximation.
How we recomputed it: pCI(42.6, 11.3, 82.7, 1)
CONSISTENTreported p = .009 · recomputed p = .008Reviewers 1, 2
Secondary endpoint: change in eGFR at 12 weeks for 25-mg dose vs placebo
“25-mg volenrelaxin ( n = 51) | +0.4 | +5.5 | +5.1 (1.3–8.8) | 0.009”
Find in source
Taken as given: The estimate is the difference in means (5.1); The 95% CI is two-sided; The test is two-sided
Method: Recomputed p-value from the estimate and 95% CI using normal approximation.
How we recomputed it: pCI(5.1, 1.3, 8.8, 0)
CONSISTENTreported p = .019 · recomputed p = .019Reviewer 2
Secondary endpoint: change in LA maximal volume index at 26 weeks, 50mg vs placebo
“50-mg volenrelaxin ( n = 38) | +1.0 | +6.4 | +5.4 (0.9–9.9) | 0.019”
Find in source
Taken as given: The estimate is the difference in means (5.4 ml/m2) and the CI is a 95% confidence interval for the difference.; The p-value is two-sided from a t-test based on least square means from MMRM.
Method: Recomputed two-sided p-value from the estimate and 95% CI using the normal approximation (pCI).
How we recomputed it: pCI(5.4, 0.9, 9.9, 0)
CONSISTENTreported p = .275 · recomputed p = .287Reviewer 2
Secondary endpoint: change in eGFR at 26 weeks, pooled volenrelaxin vs placebo
“no effect pooling all volenrelaxin doses at 26 weeks (+2.2 (95% CI: −1.8 to 6.3) ml min −1 1.73 m −2 , P = 0.275; Table ).”
Find in source
Taken as given: The estimate is the difference in means (2.2 ml/min/1.73m2) and the CI is a 95% confidence interval for the difference.; The p-value is two-sided from a t-test based on least square means from MMRM.
Method: Recomputed two-sided p-value from the estimate and 95% CI using the normal approximation (pCI).
How we recomputed it: pCI(2.2, -1.8, 6.3, 0)
CONSISTENTreported p = .070 · recomputed p = .069Reviewer 2
Clinical event: HF hospitalization, pooled volenrelaxin vs placebo
“An adjudicated HF hospitalization occurred in four patients (4.8%) in the placebo group and in 27 patients (12.2%) in the pooled volenrelaxin group—9.9 and 25.3 events per 100 patient-years of follow-up, respectively (hazard ratio (HR) = 2.64; 95% CI: 0.93–7.56, P = 0.070; Table and Extended Data Fig. ).”
Find in source
Taken as given: The estimate is the hazard ratio (2.64) and the CI is a 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio.; The p-value is two-sided from a Cox proportional hazard model.
Method: Recomputed two-sided p-value from the hazard ratio and 95% CI using the normal approximation for a ratio (log=1).
How we recomputed it: pCI(2.64, 0.93, 7.56, 1)
CONSISTENTreported p = .308 · recomputed p = .301Reviewer 2
Clinical event: CV death, HF hospitalization or urgent HF visit, pooled volenrelaxin vs placebo
“Cardiovascular death, HF hospitalization or urgent HF visit occurred in 12 patients (14.5%) in the placebo group and in 43 patients (19.4%) in the pooled volenrelaxin group—29.6 and 40.4 events per 100 patient-years of follow-up, respectively (HR = 1.40, 95% CI: 0.74–2.65, P = 0.308; Table ).”
Find in source
Taken as given: The estimate is the hazard ratio (1.40) and the CI is a 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio.; The p-value is two-sided from a Cox proportional hazard model.
Method: Recomputed two-sided p-value from the hazard ratio and 95% CI using the normal approximation for a ratio (log=1).
How we recomputed it: pCI(1.40, 0.74, 2.65, 1)
CONSISTENTreported p = .068 · recomputed p = .081Reviewer 2
Adverse event: SAE, pooled volenrelaxin vs placebo
“SAE | 15 (17.0%) | – | 65 (26.8%) | – | 1.78 (0.95–3.32) | 0.068”
Find in source
Taken as given: The numbers 65 and 15 are the counts of patients with SAE in the volenrelaxin and placebo groups, respectively.; The group totals are 243 (pooled volenrelaxin) and 88 (placebo) based on the percentages and counts.; The p-value is two-sided from Fisher's exact test.
Method: Recomputed two-sided p-value using Fisher's exact test on the 2x2 table (65, 178, 15, 73).
How we recomputed it: pFisher2x2(65, 178, 15, 73, 0)
CONSISTENTreported p = .056 · recomputed p = .074Reviewer 2
Adverse event: Cardiac or renal SAE, pooled volenrelaxin vs placebo
“Cardiac or renal SAE | 5 (5.7%) | 32 (13.2%) | – | 2.52 (0.95–6.68) | 0.056”
Find in source
Taken as given: The numbers 32 and 5 are the counts of patients with cardiac or renal SAE in the volenrelaxin and placebo groups, respectively.; The group totals are 243 (pooled volenrelaxin) and 88 (placebo) based on the percentages and counts.; The p-value is two-sided from Fisher's exact test.
Method: Recomputed two-sided p-value using Fisher's exact test on the 2x2 table (32, 211, 5, 83).
How we recomputed it: pFisher2x2(32, 211, 5, 83, 0)

lowinternal contradiction
The abstract states '31.9% NYHA class III–IV' but Table 1 shows 106/332 = 31.9%, which is consistent. However, the text says 'over half of the participants (50.6%) were in atrial fibrillation or flutter' and Table 1 shows 168/332 = 50.6%, consistent. No contradiction found.
“31.9% NYHA class III–IV”
Table 1Find in source
lowinternal contradiction
The text states 'A total of 170 patients completed the full 26-week protocol.' but the sum of completers per group is not provided. This is not a contradiction but a reporting gap.
“A total of 170 patients completed the full 26-week protocol.”
Results ¶1Find in source
lowinternal contradiction
The abstract reports '49% women' while Table 1 shows 164/332 = 49.4%, consistent. No contradiction.
49% women
Table 1reviewer’s wording

Overstated conclusions

2 findings · worst high

Conclusions that reach past what the paper's own results support — including a significance claim that no longer holds when the statistic is recomputed, and efficacy resting on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint.

Efficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpointAssessed
Treatment effect not shown to be clinically meaningfulAssessed

10 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: all adequately supported.

supportedReviewer 1
Treatment with volenrelaxin was associated with worsening congestion across multiple endpoints as compared to placebo.
The paper provides consistent evidence from multiple biomarkers and hemodynamic measures supporting worsening congestion.
Evidence: Increases in NT-proBNP, E/e', estimated plasma volume, and decreases in hematocrit and hemoglobin.
“treatment with this long-acting form of human relaxin was associated with worsening congestion in patients with recently decompensated HFpEF.”
AbstractFind in source
supportedReviewers 1, 2
Low-dose volenrelaxin improved LA reservoir strain at 26 weeks.
The primary endpoint showed a statistically significant improvement for the 25-mg dose.
Evidence: Primary endpoint result: +3.9% (95% CI 1.1-6.6, P=0.006).
“Compared to placebo, 25-mg volenrelaxin improved LA reservoir strain (+3.9%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.1–6.6, P = 0.006)”
ResultsFind in source
supportedReviewer 1
Volenrelaxin improved kidney function at 12 weeks but not at 26 weeks.
eGFR improved at 12 weeks but not at 26 weeks, consistent with the claim.
Evidence: eGFR changes at 12 weeks were positive and significant for some doses, but at 26 weeks no significant effect.
“Compared to placebo, volenrelaxin increased eGFR at 12 weeks (+5.1, +5.9, +3.0 ml min −1 1.73 m − 2 for 25 mg, 50 mg and 100 mg, respectively; Table and Fig. ), with no significant effect at 26 weeks”
ResultsFind in source
supportedReviewer 1
Volenrelaxin was associated with a non-significant increase in risk for HF hospitalization.
The hazard ratio was elevated but not statistically significant.
Evidence: HR = 2.64, 95% CI 0.93-7.56, P=0.070.
“Volenrelaxin was also associated with a non-significant increase in risk for HF hospitalization compared to placebo (hazard ratio = 2.64, 95% CI: 0.93–7.56, P = 0.070)”
ResultsFind in source
supportedReviewer 1
The data do not support volenrelaxin as a useful therapy in this setting.
Given the worsening congestion and lack of benefit on hard outcomes, the conclusion is supported.
Evidence: Overall findings of worsening congestion and no significant benefit on clinical outcomes.
“These data do not support volenrelaxin as a useful therapy in this setting.”
DiscussionFind in source
supportedReviewer 2
Treatment with volenrelaxin was associated with worsening congestion in patients with recently decompensated HFpEF.
The paper provides multiple lines of evidence (increased NT-proBNP, E/e', estimated plasma volume, decreased hematocrit, hemoglobin, sodium) supporting worsening congestion.
Evidence: Table 3 shows significant increases in NT-proBNP, E/e', estimated plasma volume, and decreases in hematocrit, hemoglobin, and sodium at various timepoints.
“In conclusion, despite some evidence for improvement in LA function at a low dose, treatment with this long-acting form of human relaxin was associated with worsening congestion in patients with recently decompensated HFpEF.”
AbstractFind in source
supportedReviewer 2
Volenrelaxin increased NT-proBNP levels at 26 weeks compared to placebo.
The pooled analysis shows a statistically significant increase in NT-proBNP (P=0.031).
Evidence: Table 3: NT-proBNP % change at 26 weeks: +24.5% (95% CI 2.0-51.8), P=0.031.
“Pooling all doses, volenrelaxin increased NT-proBNP at 26 weeks compared to placebo (+24.5% (95% CI: 2.0–51.8%), P = 0.031; Table and Fig. ).”
ResultsFind in source
supportedReviewer 2
Volenrelaxin had no significant effect on eGFR at 26 weeks.
The pooled analysis shows no significant effect on eGFR at 26 weeks (P=0.275).
Evidence: Table 3: eGFR change at 26 weeks: +2.2 ml/min/1.73m2 (95% CI -1.8 to 6.3), P=0.275.
“no effect pooling all volenrelaxin doses at 26 weeks (+2.2 (95% CI: −1.8 to 6.3) ml min −1 1.73 m −2 , P = 0.275; Table ).”
ResultsFind in source
supportedReviewer 2
Volenrelaxin was associated with a non-significant increase in risk for HF hospitalization compared to placebo.
The hazard ratio is 2.64 with a p-value of 0.070, which is non-significant at the 0.05 level.
Evidence: Table 4: HF hospitalization HR=2.64 (95% CI 0.93-7.56), P=0.070.
“An adjudicated HF hospitalization occurred in four patients (4.8%) in the placebo group and in 27 patients (12.2%) in the pooled volenrelaxin group—9.9 and 25.3 events per 100 patient-years of follow-up, respectively (hazard ratio (HR) = 2.64; 95% CI: 0.93–7.56, P = 0.070; Table and Extended Data Fig. ).”
ResultsFind in source
supportedReviewer 2
Volenrelaxin was associated with signals for an increased number of cardiovascular and renal serious adverse events.
The odds ratio is 2.52 with a p-value of 0.056, which is borderline non-significant but suggests a signal.
Evidence: Table 4: Cardiac or renal SAE OR=2.52 (95% CI 0.95-6.68), P=0.056.
“The likelihood of cardiovascular or renal serious adverse events tended to be higher in those treated with volenrelaxin compared to placebo (OR = 2.52, 95% CI: 0.95–6.68, P = 0.056).”
ResultsFind in source

Premise concern: surrogate not validated for clinical benefit; effect size not shown to be clinically meaningful.

INADEQUATESurrogate endpoint
The primary efficacy claim is based on change in left atrial (LA) reservoir strain, a surrogate imaging biomarker, without demonstration of target engagement at the tested dose or citation of validated evidence linking LA reservoir strain to hard clinical outcomes. The paper itself notes the trial was stopped early due to worsening congestion and no significant effect on hard outcomes.
“The primary outcome was the change in LA reservoir strain at 26 weeks... Compared to placebo, 25-mg volenrelaxin improved LA reservoir strain (+3.9%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.1–6.6, P = 0.006)... In conclusion, despite some evidence for improvement in LA function at a low dose, treatment with this long-acting form of human relaxin was associated with worsening congestion in patients with recently decompensated HFpEF.”
Find in source
INADEQUATEEffect size
The primary reported effect is a small absolute change in LA reservoir strain (+3.9%) compared to a baseline of ~18% (normal >39%), representing a modest relative improvement. The paper does not anchor this to a minimal clinically important difference or demonstrate meaningful clinical benefit, especially given the worsening congestion and lack of effect on hard outcomes.
“Compared to placebo, 25-mg volenrelaxin improved LA reservoir strain (+3.9%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.1–6.6, P = 0.006)... At baseline, participants had severely impaired LA reservoir strain (17.8%, normal > 39%)”
Find in source

Data authenticity concerns

1 finding · worst low

An adversarial read for patterns associated with data that may not be genuine: results that look too clean, implausibly large effects, duplicated data or images, and methods that do not match the results reported.

Other integrity concernAssessed

4 integrity concerns flagged (0 high).

lowother
The trial was stopped early, and the primary endpoint analysis includes only a subset of patients (n=38 placebo, n=32 for 25mg) due to missing data or early termination, which may introduce bias.
“Change in LA reservoir strain at 26 weeks, % | n = 38 | | 25-mg volenrelaxin ( n = 32)”
Table 2Find in source

Reporting gaps

None found

Required detail the manuscript never states — study design, biological variables, ethics approval and consent, key resources, statistical reporting, data and code availability, and overall transparency.

Checked — nothing surfaced.

Eight Dimensions8 pass

The introduction cites prior work on relaxin's vasodilatory, anti-inflammatory, and antifibrotic effects, and notes limitations of previous short-term trials. The rationale linking relaxin's effects to potential benefits in HFpEF is clearly articulated, and the study aims to address the gap of long-term relaxin therapy.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The paper establishes a clear scientific premise by citing prior research on relaxin and HFpEF, and provides a logical rationale for the study hypothesis.

Evidence

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraph 1-2]

“Continuous intravenous infusion of short-acting recombinant human relaxin has demonstrated potentially beneficial acute effects in patients with acute HF, but previous trials were limited by the short-term (48-hour) exposure, which may explain why these acute beneficial effects did not translate into improvement in longer-term outcomes.”

“In the present study, we performed a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial to determine whether treatment with volenrelaxin for 26 weeks would improve LA function, reduce congestion and improve kidney function in patients with recent worsening HFpEF.”

Introduction ¶3Find in source

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraph 2]

“Volenrelaxin is a long-acting form of human relaxin modified to bind to serum albumin, extending its half-life to enable once-weekly dosing, allowing for longer-term RXFP1 activation.”

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The paper establishes a clear scientific premise by citing prior research on relaxin and HFpEF, and provides a logical rationale for the study hypothesis.

Evidence

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraph 1-2]

Introduction ¶3Find in source

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraph 2]

“Volenrelaxin is a long-acting form of human relaxin modified to bind to serum albumin, extending its half-life to enable once-weekly dosing, allowing for longer-term RXFP1 activation.”

Randomization used a permuted block design with stratification, and blinding is described as double-blind. A power analysis is provided with assumptions. Inclusion/exclusion criteria are described, but not fully pre-specified in the main text (referenced to supplement). Outlier handling is not explicitly described, but the analysis population is defined (efficacy estimand). Controls are appropriate (placebo). Independent replication is not applicable for a single pivotal trial.

Sub-criteria

controlsADEQUATE

power analysisADEQUATE

blinding levelsADEQUATE

outlier handlingINADEQUATE

randomization unitADEQUATE

inclusion exclusionINADEQUATE

randomization methodADEQUATE

replicate distinctionN/A

independent replicationN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The trial design is rigorous with adequate randomization, blinding, power analysis, and pre-specified endpoints, though some details on inclusion/exclusion and outlier handling are limited.

Evidence

“Randomization was performed by using a permuted block design using an interactive web response system and was stratified by (1) presence of atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter on screening electrocardiogram and (2) region of enrollment.”

MethodsFind in source

“eligible patients were randomized double blind (1:1:1:1) to receive volenrelaxin 25 mg, volenrelaxin 50 mg or volenrelaxin 100 mg per week or placebo subcutaneously”

MethodsFind in source

“Assuming an s.d. in LA reservoir strain of 8.5% and a two-sided α level of 0.05, 91 completers for 50-mg, 100-mg and placebo groups was calculated to provide 88% power to detect a treatment difference of 4% or more for the primary endpoint.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The trial design is rigorous with adequate randomization, blinding, power analysis, and pre-specified inclusion/exclusion criteria.

Evidence

MethodsFind in source

“eligible patients were randomized double blind (1:1:1:1) to receive volenrelaxin 25 mg, volenrelaxin 50 mg or volenrelaxin 100 mg per week or placebo subcutaneously”

MethodsFind in source

Statistical analysisFind in source

Sex is reported for all participants, and age, BMI, and health status are detailed. Demographics include race and ethnicity, but the 'Other or mixed race' category has a small count. Species/strain and housing conditions are not applicable for a human trial.

Sub-criteria

demographicsADEQUATE

sex reportedADEQUATE

sex justifiedN/A

age weight healthADEQUATE

housing conditionsN/A

species strain sourceN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Demographic and clinical characteristics are well reported, including sex, age, and health status, though some details like race/ethnicity are partially reported.

Evidence

“Mean age was 74 years; 49% were women; mean body mass index (BMI) was 30.6 kg m − 2”

Results ¶1Find in source

“Age (years) | 74.6 (9.1) | 74.1 (10.1) | 74.7 (8.1) | 72.4 (9.7) | 74.0 (9.3)”

Table 1Find in source

paraphrase[Table 1]

“Race | Asian | 7 (7.9) | 3 (3.8) | 4 (4.9) | 3 (3.8) | 17 (5.2)”

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

Demographic and clinical characteristics are well reported, including sex, age, and health status.

Evidence

“Mean age was 74 years; 49% were women; mean body mass index (BMI) was 30.6 kg m − 2”

Results ¶1Find in source

paraphrase[Table 1]

“Race: Asian 17 (5.2), Black or African American 18 (5.5), White 293 (89.1), Other or mixed race 1 (0.3)”

“31.9% of participants were determined to be in NYHA class III–IV at enrollment.”

Results ¶1Find in source

The paper states that the ethics committee at each investigative site approved the trial and all patients provided written informed consent. This satisfies both irb_ethics_statement and informed_consent. Regulatory compliance is implied but not explicitly named, but the statement is adequate.

Sub-criteria

iacuc statementN/A

informed consentADEQUATE

irb ethics statementADEQUATE

regulatory complianceINADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Ethics approval and informed consent are adequately reported, with a named ethics committee and written consent.

Evidence

“The ethics committee at each investigative site approved the trial, and all patients provided written informed consent.”

Methods ¶1Find in source

“all patients provided written informed consent.”

Methods ¶1Find in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

Ethics approval and informed consent are adequately reported.

Evidence

“The ethics committee at each investigative site approved the trial, and all patients provided written informed consent.”

Methods ¶1Find in source

“all patients provided written informed consent.”

Methods ¶1Find in source

Volenrelaxin is named with doses and route, and the sponsor is identified. Assays are described with some vendor information (e.g., Roche cobas). Software for statistical analysis is not explicitly named, but the statistical methods are described. Since this is a drug trial, the investigational product is the key resource and is adequately identified.

Sub-criteria

mycoplasma testingN/A

reagents identifiedADEQUATE

organisms identifiedN/A

antibodies identifiedN/A

cell line authenticationN/A

software tools identifiedINADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The investigational product (volenrelaxin) is adequately identified, and the statistical software is identified, though some assay details are incomplete.

Evidence

“eligible patients were randomized double blind (1:1:1:1) to receive volenrelaxin 25 mg, volenrelaxin 50 mg or volenrelaxin 100 mg per week or placebo subcutaneously”

MethodsFind in source

“Cystatin C was determined using a turbidimetric assay (Roche cobas chemistry analyzer).”

MethodsFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The investigational product (volenrelaxin) is adequately identified, and statistical software is identified.

Evidence

“The RELAXIN-LA (A Phase 2, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study to Investigate the Efficacy and Safety of LY3540378 in Adults with Worsening Chronic Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction) trial”

Methods ¶1Find in source

“eligible patients were randomized double blind (1:1:1:1) to receive volenrelaxin 25 mg, volenrelaxin 50 mg or volenrelaxin 100 mg per week or placebo subcutaneously”

MethodsFind in source

The primary analysis uses MMRM, and tests are named. Exact p-values are reported for primary and secondary endpoints. Effect sizes are reported with 95% CIs. Software is not explicitly identified, but the methods are described. Data presentation includes per-group n and error bars. Mathematical plausibility checks were not performed due to lack of raw data, but no obvious errors were found.

Sub-criteria

tests namedADEQUATE

exact p valuesADEQUATE

effect sizes ciADEQUATE

data presentationADEQUATE

software identifiedNOT REPORTED

assumptions verifiedINADEQUATE

mathematical plausibilityN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Statistical methods are appropriate and well-described, with exact p-values and effect sizes with confidence intervals, though some assumptions are not explicitly verified.

Evidence

“Treatment comparison is assessed using two-sided t -test based on least square means from MMRM.”

Table 2Find in source

“Compared to placebo, 25-mg volenrelaxin improved LA reservoir strain (+3.9%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.1–6.6, P = 0.006)”

ResultsFind in source

“Compared to placebo, 25-mg volenrelaxin improved LA reservoir strain (+3.9%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.1–6.6, P = 0.006)”

ResultsFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

Statistical methods are appropriate and well-described, with exact p-values and effect sizes with confidence intervals.

Evidence

“Treatment comparison is assessed using two-sided t -test based on least square means from MMRM.”

Table 2Find in source

“Compared to placebo, 25-mg volenrelaxin improved LA reservoir strain (+3.9%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.1–6.6, P = 0.006)”

ResultsFind in source

“Compared to placebo, 25-mg volenrelaxin improved LA reservoir strain (+3.9%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.1–6.6, P = 0.006)”

ResultsFind in source

The data availability statement provides a concrete mechanism for accessing individual participant data through Vivli, with conditions and timeframe. Repository deposit and accession numbers are not applicable for patient-level data. Code sharing is not applicable as no bespoke code is mentioned.

Sub-criteria

code sharingN/A

accession numbersN/A

repository depositN/A

data availability statementADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Data availability is well-described with a concrete access route via Vivli, and the trial is registered.

Evidence

“Eli Lilly and Company provides access to all individual participant data collected during the trial, after anonymization, except for pharmacokinetic or genetic data. Data are available to request 6 months after the indication studied has been approved in the United States and the European Union and after primary publication acceptance, whichever is later. No expiration date of data requests is currently set once data have been made available. Access is provided after a proposal has been approved by an independent review committee identified for this purpose and after receipt of a signed data-sharing agreement. Data and documents, including the study protocol, statistical analysis plan, clinical study report and blank or annotated case report forms, will be provided in a secure data-sharing environment. For details on submitting a request, see the instructions provided at https://vivli.org/ .”

Data availabilityFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

Data availability is adequately described with a concrete access route via Vivli.

Evidence

Data availabilityFind in source

The trial is registered (NCT05592275). Methods are detailed enough for replication. Limitations are discussed. Conclusions are proportional to the evidence. Funding and COI are disclosed. A reporting guideline is not explicitly mentioned, but the paper follows CONSORT-like structure.

Sub-criteria

funding coiADEQUATE

trial registrationADEQUATE

reporting guidelineNOT REPORTED

methods completenessADEQUATE

all outcomes reportedADEQUATE

limitations discussedADEQUATE

conclusions proportionalADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The manuscript is transparent with trial registration, detailed methods, and discussion of limitations, though a reporting guideline is not explicitly mentioned.

Evidence

“ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05592275 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05592275) .”

AbstractFind in source

“The major limitation relates to the fact that this trial was stopped early before the target enrollment was achieved, decreasing power.”

Discussion ¶7Find in source

“The RELAXIN-LA trial was funded by Eli Lilly and Company.”

AcknowledgementsFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The manuscript is transparent with trial registration, reporting guideline, and comprehensive reporting of outcomes and limitations.

Evidence

“ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05592275 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05592275) .”

AbstractFind in source

“Further information on research design is available in the linked to this article.”

AbstractFind in source

“The major limitation relates to the fact that this trial was stopped early before the target enrollment was achieved, decreasing power.”

Discussion ¶7Find in source

Registered (1 ID: ClinicalTrials.gov). No reporting guideline cited.

ClinicalTrials.gov

NCT05592275

Broken references and links

None found

References checked against Crossref, OpenAlex and Retraction Watch for retractions and resolvability, plus declared data and code links probed for whether they resolve to content matching the paper.

Checked — nothing surfaced.

Checked 43 references by DOI: 43 verified.

Every extracted reference resolved against Crossref/OpenAlex with no retraction flags.

1 data/code link checked; 1 live.

datahttps://vivli.org/LIVEHTTP 200
Resolves, but the content could not be matched to the paper.

Copyediting

6 minor

Wording, consistency and formatting errors that need correcting before submission.

No major wording or formatting errors. 6 minor suggestions below.

6 copyedit issues flagged: mostly typo, consistency, clarity.

MINORtypoAbstract
“31 11 500671 3853 3861”
→ Remove extraneous numbers
Appears to be a formatting artifact.
MINORconsistencyTable 1
“Other or mixed race | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (1.2) | 1 (0.3)”
→ Ensure percentages sum to 100% for each group.
Percentages for race categories may not sum to 100% due to rounding.
MINORclarityMethods, Statistical methods
“The sponsor identified a serious breach of protocol from one site in November 2023, in which all enrolled participants were deemed not to meet a key inclusion criterion.”
→ Clarify the nature of the breach and the specific inclusion criterion.
Could be more specific for transparency.
MINORtypoAuthor affiliations, affiliation 10
“Instituto do Coração do Hospitasl das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da USP”
→ Change 'Hospitasl' to 'Hospital'.
Typographical error in affiliation name.
MINORconsistencyTable 1, Race row
“Other or mixed race | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (1.2) | 1 (0.3)”
→ Ensure percentages sum to 100% for each column; currently they do not (e.g., placebo: 7.9+3.4+88.8+0.0=100.1).
Minor rounding inconsistency in percentages.
MINORclarityMethods, Statistical methods
“The sponsor identified a serious breach of protocol from one site in November 2023, in which all enrolled participants were deemed not to meet a key inclusion criterion.”
→ Clarify the nature of the breach and the key inclusion criterion for transparency.
Could be more specific about the breach.

Kaimen Rigor Action ItemsFinal pass before journal submission

The published work is robust and well-reported; an informed reader should weigh the early termination and reduced power as the main limitation. Minor reporting gaps (statistical software, explicit reporting guideline) and copyedit typos do not undermine the conclusions but could be addressed in a correction or noted in a reader's assessment.

1.
MEDIUMreporting
In the Methods, explicitly state the statistical software (e.g., SAS version) used for analyses.
Both reviewers flagged software_identified as inadequate; naming the software improves reproducibility.
2.
MEDIUMreporting
In the Methods, provide a more detailed description of inclusion/exclusion criteria in the main text rather than referring only to the supplement.
Reviewer 1 noted this as inadequate; full criteria in the main text improve transparency.
3.
MEDIUMreporting
In the Methods, explicitly state compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki or ICH-GCP guidelines.
Both reviewers noted regulatory_compliance as inadequate; explicit statement strengthens ethics reporting.
4.
MEDIUMreporting
In the Methods, mention adherence to CONSORT guidelines for reporting clinical trials.
Reviewer 1 noted reporting_guideline as not reported; explicit mention improves transparency.
5.
MEDIUMstatistics
In the Statistical methods, describe how assumptions of the MMRM were verified (e.g., normality of residuals).
Reviewer 1 noted assumptions_verified as inadequate; documenting assumption checks strengthens statistical rigor.
6.
LOWcopyedit
In the Abstract, remove the extraneous numbers '31 11 500671 3853 3861'.
Copyedit flagged this as a formatting artifact that should be cleaned.
7.
LOWcopyedit
In Author affiliations, correct 'Hospitasl' to 'Hospital' in affiliation 10.
Copyedit flagged a typographical error in the affiliation name.
8.
LOWcopyedit
In Table 1, ensure race percentages sum to 100% for each group, adjusting for rounding.
Copyedit flagged minor rounding inconsistencies in percentages.
9.
LOWreporting
In the Methods, clarify the nature of the protocol breach and the specific inclusion criterion that was not met.
Copyedit flagged this as a clarity issue; more specificity improves transparency.
10.
LOWdata code
In the Data Availability section, consider adding a statement about code availability if any custom analysis code was used.
Reviewer 2 suggested this to fully address code_sharing.
11.
LOWreporting
In the Discussion, add a sentence acknowledging the lack of independent replication and the need for confirmatory trials.
Reviewer 2 suggested this to strengthen the limitations discussion.
12.
LOWreporting
In the Methods, provide more detail on the blinding of the central core laboratory and the clinical endpoint committee.
Reviewer 2 suggested this to fully address blinding_levels.

Full text (64,513 chars)Analyzed: Aug 15, 2026

RigorReviewer 1

RigorReviewer 2

RigorPre-Submission Reviewer

CopyeditAgent Scribe

CitationsCitation Integrity

StatisticsStatistics Consistency

ReproducibilityLink verification (liveness + content)· no model (rule-based)

PreregistrationDeterministic check· no model (rule-based)

The star rating is the report’s one-glance summary. Every paper starts at 5★ and loses stars for the concrete problems the review finds — so a rating is never a vague average, it’s a running total you can read line by line under “How this rating was calculated.”

How stars are deducted

Reporting — 8 dimensionseach dimension that fully fails−½★
each dimension partially met−¼★
Statistics · Integrity · Claimseach serious problem−1★
each medium problem−½★
Citationseach retracted or unverifiable reference−¼★
Copyeditonly when the manuscript needs a full edit−½★

The rating never drops below 1★, and a demonstrable critical failure (an impossible statistic, a proven ethics violation) caps it at 1★ on its own — so the stars can never look healthy when the verdict is CRITICAL.

The rating draws on a panel of agents. Three independent Kaimen Rigor reviewers grade the eight dimensions below across several independent passes (the shown verdict is their majority vote — steadier than any single run), isolate the paper’s major claims and check its own evidence backs them, and flag integrity concerns. Alongside them, a citation agent resolves every reference against Crossref, OpenAlex, and Retraction Watch; a statistics agent recomputes reported tests; and rule-based checks verify that declared data/code links actually resolve. Full text is required — an abstract-only submission is not analyzed.

The eight reporting dimensions

Scientific PremisePrior work, rationale, and how it addresses gaps.

Study Design & RigorRandomization, blinding, power, controls, replication.

Biological VariablesSex, age, species/strain, housing, demographics.

Ethical ApprovalsIRB/IACUC approval, informed consent, regulatory compliance.

Key ResourcesAntibodies, cell lines, organisms, software — identified with persistent IDs.

Statistical ReportingNamed tests, exact p-values, effect sizes, plausible summary stats.

Data & Code AvailabilityAvailability statements, repositories, accession numbers, shared code.

Reporting TransparencyMethods, registration, guidelines, outcomes, limitations, funding/COI.

Graded against NIH, MDAR, ARRIVE 2.0, CONSORT, EQUATOR, and RRID guidelines. A dimension that doesn’t apply to the study type is skipped, never penalized.

This Kaimen Rigor review is model-assisted and is not a substitute for formal expert review. It complements human evaluation by surfacing potential methodological concerns — verify each finding against the source.

Effects of volenrelaxin in worsening heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a phase 2 randomized trial.

DOI

10.1038/s41591-025-03939-6

Record issued

2026-08-15

Engine

7.39.0

Exported

2026-09-22