Rigor Reviewed

Rigor-Reviewed Manuscript

Anti-inflammatory therapy with low-dose IL-2 in acute coronary syndromes: a randomized phase 2 trial.

Name: Αlpha¹ Rigor Record — Anti-inflammatory therapy with low-dose IL-2 in acute coronary syndromes: a randomized phase 2 trial.
Item: Anti-inflammatory therapy with low-dose IL-2 in acute coronary syndromes: a randomized phase 2 trial.
Rating: 96
Author: Αlpha¹

Sriranjan-Rothwell RS, Zhao TX, Hoole SP, Bond SJ, Tarkin JM, Brubert J, Hubsch A, Helmy J, Bumanlag-Amis E, Jalaludeen N, Templin H, Jiang W, Tedgui A, Zhao X, Nus M, Warnes V, Krishnan U, O'Brien JW, Wall C, Rudd JHF, Cheriyan J, Mallat Z, IVORY investigators

Paper source

Read full text (PMC)

Embed this Rigor badge

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review — 1★ (Critical), 0 critical, 5 high issues for “Anti-inflammatory therapy with low-dose IL-2 in acute coronary syndromes: a randomized phase 2 trial.”

Links back to this Rigor Record.

Αlpha¹ Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Αlpha¹ Editorial · August 15, 2026

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review

Rigor Reviewed

1 / 5

Critical — serious problems across many checks

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

IntegrityIntegrity concern ×4−2★
CitationsCitations & links (capped) ×5−1★
ClaimsEfficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint−0.5★
ClaimsTreatment effect not shown to be clinically meaningful−0.5★
ReportingData & code availability partially met−0.25★

Citations & links are capped at −1★ combined, however many are flagged.

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

Not verified in this report

The numeric-impossibility checks (GRIM/GRIMMER/DEBIT/SPRITE) did not run: 4 reported means were read, and their group size is not stated where the values are printed (this source has no machine-readable table structure). These checks need the count the mean was averaged over, so none was performed.

Problems surfaced7 types

Numerical inconsistencies1

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

Overstated conclusions3

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
Conclusions only partially backed by the presented evidenceAssessed

Data authenticity concerns1

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

Reporting gaps1

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.

Data/code availability incompleteAssessed

Broken references and links1

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.

References not resolvable to a published paperRecomputed

This Αlpha¹ Rigor Review uses AI 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.

The paper is a well-designed and transparently reported phase 2 randomized controlled trial with rigorous methodology, clear ethical approvals, and appropriate statistical analysis. The main weakness is the vague data availability statement, and there are minor copyediting issues including an unresolvable trial registration number and inconsistent p-value rounding.

Both reviewers classified the study as interventional and agreed on all dimension statuses; no substantive divergence. The statistics verification covered only 2 tests (those with test statistics/df or effect+CI), so the statistical analysis is not fully verified; the citation check flagged 5 references not found in registries, and the integrity check raised a high-severity concern about an unresolvable trial registration number.

8 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: 2 only partially supported (evidence backs part of the claim; gaps or caveats remain); the rest adequately supported.

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

Recomputed 2 tests: 2 consistent, 0 inconsistent; 2 via agent-written checks.

4 integrity concerns flagged (1 high).

Reporting

Eight Dimensions7 pass · 1 warn

The introduction cites prior studies on Treg cells in ACS, low-dose IL-2 effects, and the unmet need for anti-inflammatory therapies. The hypothesis follows logically from the cited evidence. Limitations of prior work are implicitly addressed by the trial design, though not explicitly framed as addressing prior limitations.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedINADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The premise is well-established with prior work cited and a clear rationale linking Treg modulation to reduced arterial inflammation.

Evidence

direct quote[Main, paragraph 1-3]

“Studies have demonstrated that T reg cell numbers are reduced and their function impaired in ACSs”